CODEX B
AND ITS ALLIES
A Study and an Indictment
PART |
BY
H. C. HOSKIER
AUTHOR OF
“CONCERNING THE GENESIS OF THE VERSIONS OF THE N.T.”;
**CONCERNING THE DATE OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION”;
AND EDITOR OF COLLATIONS OF ‘*THE MorGAN GOSPELS,” AND OF
THE GREEK CURSIVES 157 AND 604 (700).
ὃ βίος βραχύς, ἦ δὲ τέχνη μακρή,
ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὀξύς, ἣ δὲ πεῖρα σφαλερή, ἡ δὲ κρίσις χαλεπή.
Δεῖ δὲ οὐ μόνον ἑαντὸν παρέχειν τὰ δέοντα ποιέοντα, ἀλλὰ
καὶ τὸν νοσέυντα, καὶ τοὺς παρεόντας, καὶ τὰ ἔξωθεν.
~—Hippocrates (Aphor. I.)
CODEX B
AND ITS ALLIES
A Study and an Indictment
PARTA
BY
H. C. HOSKIER
PART I
Codex B and Its Allies
By Hoskier, H.C.
Bernard Quaritch - 1914.
THIS ESSAY IS RESPECTFULLY
DEDICATED TO
THE NEXT BODY oF
REVISERS
IN THE HOPE THAT
id MAY PROVE OF SOME SERVICE
TO THEM.
Note - This book was originally posted FREE at www.archive.org
Many other Free Ebooks available there.
Books for your consideration
It would be a mistake to suggest that we agree with all of the
books we will list below. No book or author is perfect, and
neither is this list.
However, there is material in these sources, that do relate
to the topic of the book in which this list is found, and these Ebooks
are therefore listed for your potential consideration.
Agree or disagree with them, Freedom of Choice and thinking
belong to each individual. Make up your own mind.
Codex B and Allies by Hoskier (review of Vaticanus, Sinait. and NK] V)
Relevant to all versions and manuscripts, including Tischendorf,
Wescott & Hort, J White, Burgon, Riplinger, Cumbey, etc
Battle for the Bible by Professor Harold Lindsell
All books by John William Burgon, Oxford, including
Revision Revised
New Age Bible Versions by Riplinger (often attacked though not
much substantiated against, her own videos are available online
and for Free) [Hidden Dangers of Rainbow by C.C. Is an old Standby
as is New Age Messiah by same]. A Time of Departing by Youngen,
and Deceived on Purpose by Warren Smith are relevant here.
Greek Text for comparison should be the 1550/51 version of
Stephens(Estienne) [Textus Receptus] also versions 1860 Scrivener
or Cura P.Wilson.
Canon of the Old and New Testaments by Alexander (Princeton)
All Books by George Stanley Faber (watch for other fabers)
All books by Robert D. Wilson
All Books by R.A. Anderson
Sources of the Koran by Sir William Muir is significant in Textual
Criticism concerning Apocryphal and Islamic literature, though not
always in other contexts.
PREFACE.
od γὰρ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει.---ἰ Cor. iv. 20.
.. ἕκαστος δὲ βλεπέτω πῶς ἐποικοδομεῖ.---Ἴ. Cor, iii. 10.
ὃ δὲ λοιπὸν ζητεῖται ἐν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις ἵνα πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ.---1 Cor. iv. 2.
1. Τὸ ἰβ high time that the bubble of codex B should be pricked.
Jt had not occurred to me to write what follows until recently.
I had thought that time would cure the extraordinary Hortian heresy, but
when I found that after a silence of twenty years my suggestion that
Hort’s theories were disallowed today only provoked a denial from a
scholar and a critic who has himself disavowed a considerable part of the
readings favoured by Hort t it seemed time to write a consecutive account
of the crooked path pursued by the Ms B, which—from ignorance [ trow—
inost people still confuse with purity and ‘ neutrality.”
I proceed to “‘name”’ the aforesaid scholar, since he has challenged
me. Dr. A. Souter began a review of my ‘Genesis of the Versions’ by
saying that—‘ ΤῈ is the business of a eritic first to destroy his enemy's
position before he seeks to build up his own.”
He ended by expressing gratitude for my collations of mss as
such, but added some very strong advice to hold my tongue as regarded
commenting on the evidence so painfully accumulated, which he and
others would use—but which I must not use or discuss. He said: “ We
cannot afford to do without his valuable cooperation in New Testament
textual criticism, but would suggest that he confine his energies to the
collection and accurate presentation of material, and leave theorizing to
others, at least meantime.”
I refuse to be bound by such advice. I demand a fair hearing on
a subject very near my heart, and with which by close attention for
many years I have tried to make myself sufficiently acquainted to be
able and qualified to discuss it with those few who have pursued a
parallel course of study.
T present therefore an indictment against the ms B and against
Westcott and Hort, subdivided into hundreds of separate counts. I do
+ When this was written I believed that the Revised text to which Dr. Souter added
gome critical apparatus (published by the Clarendon Press in 1910) really represented his
views as to the text. He informs me, however, that I am mistaken, and that he favours
practically the whole text of Hort, Yet I prefer to allow to stand what I have written
above, because Dr. Souter withholds in his notes in certain places (6... John xiii. 19 as
to τίνας pro ods) the evidence of B ai. upon which the readings of Hort were founded,
and which the Revisers rejected in those places. The inference is obvious and almost
indubitable that Dr. Souter must agree with the Revisers against Westcott and Hort in
such places, or he would have given the alternative readings and the evidence for them
in his notes.
b
i CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
not believe that the jurymen who will ultimately render a verdict have ever
had the matter presented to them formally, legally, and in proper detail.
A comparative study of the Versions has been made but by few.
Tischendorf did the best he could, but often neglects a Latin Ms or
the Aethiopic version when, for instance, standing alone with N. In
such cases N appears to be the only witness, but has support.
Mr. Horner’s apparatus in his edition of the Gospels in the Sahidic
dialect has some improvements on Tischendorf, but he has also
overlooked many important little keys.
I have endeavoured to bring out other points of vital interest for
a full and complete understanding of the matter.
Many errors of omission may yet be found in my own apparatus.
I do not ask the critics to favour me with corrections of manifest slips,
or of a printer’s error of a Greek accent, or as to whether Schepps
is spelled Schepps or Schepss, I ask for a categorical answer count
by count to my indictment of B. I ask for intelligent discussion of how
it would have been possible for an ‘‘ Antiochian” revision to have dis-
placed certain B readings had they been really genuine. And I ask for
a proper explanation of certain Egyptian and Alexandrian features
amounting to clear revision in the text of B and &, if we are to divorce
them from Alexandria and Egyptian soil where they belong properly.
I had not intended simultaneously to write out the history of ἐξ,
which I have sketched in Part II. But this was early forced upon
me, and will I think materially contribute to a proper grasp of the
problems involved.
Dr. Souter has said that ‘it is the business of a critic first to destroy
his enemy’s position,” but I beg to observe that the enemy, under deepest
cover of night, has already abandoned several important positions. And
there is such a thing as a flanking movement which compels retirement or
surrender without striking a more direct blow in front. Thirty years and
more have been allowed for them to retire in good order. If the finale
is to be ἃ rout and a “sauve qui peut,” it is not owing to lack of patience
on the part of the other side. But it will be owing to apathy, to
unfaithfulness, to pride, to imcomplete examination of documentary
evidence, and to an overweening haste to establish the “true’”’ text
without due regard to scientific foundations.
If now I throw some bombs into the inner citadel, it is because from
that Keep there continues to issue a large amount of ignorant iteration of
Hort’s conclusions, without one particle of proof that his foundation
theory is correct.
It is impossible to reproduce or restore the text of Origen. Origen
had no settled text.| A reference to the innumerable places where he is
+ This is strong language, but compare Mark xi. 1/12, where Origen at different
times employs two different recensions without seeming to observe it.
PREFACE. iil
upon both sides of the question, as set forth in detail herein, will show this
clearly. Add the places where he is in direct opposition to N and B, and
we must reconsider the whole position, pending which a return to
Weitstein’s text might be an improvement.
I ask for a patient hearing of what must take a considerable time
in the telling (although I have condensed the matter as much as seemed
possible), while I proceed to sing the Death-song of B as a neutral text,
2. Now as to the supposed Antioch revision, and as to an Egyptian
revision, history is very silent. I know of no hook where the matter
is succinetly sketched except ‘The Introduction to the Old Testament
in Greek,’ by Dr. Swete (1900). Here (p. 78 seg) Dr. Swete distin-
guished between the later and the earlier Hesychius, and seems to
accept as probable that Phileas and Hesychius (the earlier) at the end
of the third century, with or without Pachymius and Theodore, engaged
in Egypt in a revision of the Greek New Testament scriptures as wel)
as of the Old Testament. And it is to be assumed that St. Jerome
was referring to this Hesychius as to a revision possibly of both
Testaments. The Decret. Gelasii to which Dr. Swete refers (p. 79)
speaks of an Hesychius, but of whom it is difficult to judge as the date of
the Deer. is uncertain.t But whether the labours of the earlier Hesychius
and of Phileas may not be involved in the charge, some things in the
following pages seem to suggest, and possibly the labours of the several
men of the name of Hesychius were somewhat confused in later times.
As to Lucian, with or without Dorotheus, and his presumed revision
of the Scriptures at Antioch, probable as this may be, we are again in
a difficulty. This Lucian died in 312, but he is not the same Lucian
[circa 120-190] to whom Origen [186-253] refers as having probably
altered the Scriptures (contra Celsum ii. cb. xxvii). ‘“ Now I know of
no others who have altered the Gospel save the followers of Marcion and
those of Valentinus and I think also those of Lucian.”
To Lucian and Hesychius together Jerome refers in his letter to
Damasus: ‘‘ Praetermitio eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nun-
cupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio quibus utique
nec in (toto) veteri instrumento post septuaginta interpretes emendare
quid licuit nec in novo profuit emendasse cum multarum gentium linguis
scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt.” This
certainly refers to the second Lucian and probably to the first Hesychius.
In his praefatio ad Paralip. Jerome says: ‘‘ Alexandria et Aegyptus
in Septuaginta suis Hesychium landat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque
Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has pro-
vinciae Palaestinos codices legunt ; quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebins
ὁ As to the date of the Decretum Gelasii itself see article by F. ©. Burkitt in
‘ Journal of Theol. Studies’ for April 1918, Ὁ. 470,
ὦ 2
iv CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
et Pamphilius vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate
compugnat....” Here he is certainly only referring to the O.T. directly.
Whether or not Hesychius 1 and Phileas are the ones responsible
for the Egyptian revision of the New Testament, there was evidently such
a revision, which is what the following pages are concerned to exhibit. —
I do not deny that Lucian m perhaps. also revised the New
Testament about the same time (circa 290 A.D.) at Antioch, and that
therefore, as Hort allowed, the Textus receptus foundation is synchronous |
as to age with the other forms of text.
But Ido not see how it is possible to accord to the NB group any
general neutral base as against the other text, or to see any way out
of the difficulty except an assumption that the NB group represent this
Egyptian and Hesychian (1) revision, with traces here and there, it is true,
of a, foundation common to an earlier form shared by both Antiochian
and Egyptian bases before either revision took place.
The principal point involved is: ‘ Who is responsible for the greater
revising?” And the answer seems decided that the NB group should
be given the palm. Otherwise we cannot explain the facts. For it is
inconceivable that Lucian tm or anyone else removed what are con-
sidered such good readings in NB as:
Matthew vi. 7. υποκριται (pro eOvixot)
xvii. 15. κακῶς eyes (pro xaxws πάσχει)
xix. 4. κτίσας (pro ποιησας)
xx. 84, ομματων (pro οφθαλμων)
xxii. 10. νυμῴων (pro γαμος)
Mark ν. 36. wapaxovcas (pro ἀκουσας)
vii. 4. ραντισωνται (pro βαπτισωνται)
Xx. 16 κατευλογει (pro εὐλογεῖ)
Luke xi. 88, φως (pro φεγγος)
xii. 28. audiafer (pro ἀαμφιεννυσι)
xii. 56._ ove odare δοκιμαξειν (pro ov δοκιμαζετε)
xxii. 55. weptaavrwr (pro ἀψαντων)
χχῖν. 33. ηθροισμενους (pro συνηθροισμενους)
John iv. 15. δίιερχωμαε (pro epyepar)
xi. 57. ἐντολὰς (pro ἐντοληνὴ
xix. 41. ἣν τεθείμενος (pro ετεθη)
On this ground alone then, however pure or impure, neutral or
expanded, may be the narrative in the Antiochian or Constantinopolitan
text, it shows a base in such places free from the “ improvements ”’
made in Egypt.
Until this matter be disproved, and I see not how it can be done
away with, we must refuse to allow the priority or purity of the NB recen-
sion over that of Constantinople and Antioch as to genuine neutral base.
PREFACE, v
My thesis is then that it was B and & and their forerunners with
Origen who revised the ‘‘ Antioch ” text. And that, although there is an
older base than either of these groups, the ‘‘ Antioch ”’ text is purer in
many respects, if not ‘ better,” and is nearer the original base than much
of that in vogue in Egypt.
I have recently published a fresh collation of Evan 157. I was
anxious to do this for several reasons, but I was surprised at the
result; principally because I found that the text of the ms had, like
so many others, passed through Egypt at some time and become
imbued with a good many coptic readings which are of such a nature
that they could only have been obtained through the agency of a
graeco-coptic document.
This matter illustrates our point very thoroughly and very decidedly.
Where 157 opposes NB and coterie we are to suppose that upon its
return to Constantinople the archetype of 157 was subjected to a
rigorous comparison with a standard which caused the removal of all
the “‘ good” readings of the NB group! Such a thing is unthinkable.
On the contrary, 157 is a good example of a text full of “‘old’”’ readings
and having ἃ very ancient base, yet not “improved” on the principles
of NB. Bui all this will develop as we proceed with our examination.
Dr. Souter has said further of me in his review of my ‘Genesis of
the Versions,’ ‘‘ It is rhetoric and perhaps something worse to say that
Hori’s whole classification is now adnutted to be wrong (p. 387). Mr.
Hoskier would find it difficult to prove this.”
In reply to this, I will only say that in the same volume under review
I had quoted Burkitt and others on this very point, and given their own
language. But I will be still more precise here and subjoin some of the
remarks which can be gathered from a rapid glance at the writings of
Kenyon, Burkitt, and Turner, without mentioning Merx.
“There remain the ‘ Neutral’ and ‘ Alexandrian’ groups, tf we accept
Hort’s classification.” —Crum and Kenyon, J.T.S. vol. i. Ὁ. 432, ‘Of the
middle-Egyptian graeco-coptic fragment.’
“Tischendorf’s text is, in my own opinion, right in many places where
the text of Hort is wrong; but it is right, as it were, rather because a sort
of divining instinct, the result of his long acquaintance with his material,
led him to the truth, than because he had really, at least in the sense that
Hort and von Soden have done, argued out his principles.” —C. H. Turner,
J.T.S. vol. xi. Ὁ. 183, ‘ Historical Introduction to the Textual Criticism of
the N.T.’
[But Tichendorf “argues out his principles” on every other page
of his N.T., and although he often follows B against δὲ, it is δὲ as a
“neutral” text that he is following just where Turner no doubt agrees
with his critical acumen.—H.C.H. |
Vi CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
“ Some few of these ‘ interpolations’ may possibly not be interpolations
at all, but portions of the true text which have fallen out of NB... .
“As soon as the Latinity of the ‘Italian’ group is studied without
special reference to the type of Greek text represented by the various
mss, tt becomes at once evident that Dr. Hort’s classification is unsatis-
factory. The first blow to it was dealt by Mr. White in his edition
of g....”—F. C. Burkitt, Texts and Studies, vol. iv. No. 3, ‘The ale
Latin and the Itala,’ pp. 52 and 55.
“The text of Westcott and Hort is practically the text of NB. The
Old Syriac sometimes supports the true text of the NB family, where N
singly or B singly deserts the family to side with a later variation; is it
not therefore possible, and indeed likely, that in some instances δὲ and B
may both have deserted the reading which they ought to have followed,
and that they and not S (= syr sin) are inconsistent? That’ δὲ and B
occasionally ”’ [over 3,000 real differences between δὲ and B are recorded
in the Gospels alone |—H.C.H.] “‘ are inconsistent with themselves appears
certain in several places. Carefully as B is written, now and again it
presents an ungrammatical reading, which proves on examination to be
the fragment of a rival variant. Thus at Matt. xxiii. 26.... Other
instances are... . In all these instances” [Matt. xxi. 31, xxiii. 26,
xxvii. 17, Luke xi. 33, xix. 87] “B presents us with what is evidently
a doctored text.” —¥F. C. Burkitt, ‘Hiv. da Mepharreshe,’ vol. ii. pp. 2884.
Now in the following pages I submit a vast number of other
instances where B has a doctored text, plainly, indubitably doctored.
Hort and my side cannot both be right in their estimate of this ‘“‘ neutral”
text. I claim merely that it is mot neutral, and may not be followed
unless standing with strong independent company apart from the other
usual “Egyptian”? supporters. I had thought von Soden agreed with me,
but his new text is very eclectic, and I wish to submit my. side of the
question independently of his views. I have had no correspondence with
him on the subject. Adalbert Merx is decidedly on my side.
{Notz.—As to Hesychius referred to on Ὁ. iii we have really to
distingaish between four men of this name (and possibly a fifth may lurk
between them).
Hesychius circa 200 in Egypt.
Hesychius the Alexandrian and lexicographer ca. 380.
Hesychius of Jerusalem stated as 0b. 609 by Gregory, but in Gallandius
vol. xi. Pref. p. vii as ob. in 433 or 486. To this man is
attributed the Concordance or harmony republished (?) by
Severus in 513.
Hesychius of Miletus circa 540, author of an Onomasticon and
Chronicon. |
INTRODUCTION.
Πάντα δοκιμάζετε " τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε.---1 Thess. v. 21,
Γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι.--- Αρ61165 Epiph.
Origen Job
Zou γὰρ, φησὶν [ὁ Κύριος}, ἄνθρωπε, τοὺς λόγους μον ὡς ἀργύριον ἐπὶ τραπεζιτῶν καὶ ὡς
Χρήματα Soxtudocat.—Clembhom.
I suppose that it will readily be conceded that C. H. Turner is
without question the most brilliant writer on Textual Criticism today.
It is always a pleasure to read him, and to be carried along in his racy
and well-balanced style, which shows large mastery of the historical side
of the problem as far as we have gathered it to-day. But there are
certain weak points in his argument. I refer particularly to his article
in the J.T.S. for January 1910,+ which I think shows a smaller
1 ‘Historical Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.’
V: The Languages of the Early Church; (B) Syriac and the first Syriac Gospels.
Turner’s two examples in textual criticism (Matt. i. 16 and Luke xiv. 5) are
distinguished, as usual, by a perfectly lucid view of matters which would surely lead him
a long way as a helpful master in the science if he would collate certain texts with
each other and get at the many suggestions for the origin of error which abound when
the documents themselves are consulted. Thus, as to ovos and wos in Luke xiv. 5 the
origin of the change may perhaps be referred merely to the propinquity of other words
with similar commencement or termination. If he will turn up the Codex Sinaiticas
the following will be found:
CENKAIATIOKPI6 1c
MPOCAYTONEINEN
TINOCYMWNONoe
HBOYCEIC@PEAPNE
At first sight it looks as if the corrector had misplaced YC (YIOC) over the wrong
ON, but he is apparently correcting αὐτὸν to avrovs. It is possible that a similar change
where YC was written by mistake over the wrong ON (in ONOC) led to the trouble.
Now if we turn to B: AYTONKAIAMEAYCEN
KAIMNPOCAYTOYCEINE
TINGCCYMWNYIOGHBOY:e
EIC@PEAPMECEITAIK
we find veos comes below avravs, as in N oves comes below avroy. Hence there was a
possibility of error oculi in both places, making for vos in one and ores in the other.
A faint or interlined original therefore may be the cause of the trouble, as we see from
syr cu’s conflation.
Note further that AS and U have OYIOC, retaining an O, while D’s προβατον is
faithfully reproduced in @ OVIS (ovis et bobis), We may even hazard that OVIS might
have influenced ONOC in that dim yeriod when “‘ Western” and ‘“ Alexandrian ” texts
were linking up.
vill CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES,
acquaintance with the testimony of the Mss themselves than I expected
to find in his writings.
On p. 188,4 he says ‘‘ Hort was the last and’ perhaps the ablest of
a long line of editors of the Greek Testament, commencing in the
eighteenth century, who very tentatively at first, but quite ruthlessly
in the end, threw over the later in favour of the earlier Greek Mss: AND
THAT ISSUE WILL NEVER HAVE TO BE TRIED AGAIN. In Hort’s hands
this preference for the earlier mss was pushed to its most extreme
form....”
This sentence seems to me to lack a grasp of what the testimony of
the later documenis ts (as evidenced by the contents of those which we
know) and what the testimony may be of those which are yet unexamined,
of which of course there are hundreds and hundreds.
To take Rendel Harris’ 892, published in 1890, or Schmidtke’s Paris
nat" for example (the latter variously known as Scrivener 748, or
Gregory 579, or von Soden ε 376, olim Reg 2861, olim Colbert 5258)
which was published in 1903, we find texts which at first sight are in
large accord with NBLYW. Yet if we examine them more closely, as I
have had occasion to do in reading them a score of times, we find a
strange state of things. For if, where they accord with NBLY, they are
supporting the genuine reading, what are they doing when they are
aberrant, as we find on every page? What are they doing when they
accord with the “‘ Antioch” side, or with 28 or 157 or the Syriac alone,
or when they have their own peculiar way of exhibiting the text? If
the question be closed, as Turner says: ‘‘and that issue will never have
to be tried again,” how are we to judge of the issues where δὲ and B are
opposed, in over 3,000 places? for he says on Ὁ. 183 just previously :
‘“‘ Tischendorf’s text is, in my own opinion, right in many places where
the text of Hort is wrong....” It is in such places that I claim the
testimony of 892 or Paris®’ as invaluable for “control.” <A deep study
of the phenomena involved in this is imperative, for the question which
arises in such cases is whether this text antedates the common base
of NB or not.t
Turner has a reference to an Oxyrynchus papyrus which claims our
attention next. In this connection let it be understood that the oldest
documents in profane literature unearthed by Grenfell and Hunt are
+ It is well. to bear in mind at all times that the questions at issue are not those
of the xvi century versus those of the rv. It is a question of the mss of the
iv" +L of vit/tx + RTQ of vi/v [WX with D occupying a position midway]
against a large band of other uncials of nearly the same dates. The textual questions
involved are all back of the iv" cent. In other words it is not a question of Turner’s
“lpter mss in favour of the earlier Greek mss,” but as to who was right a.p. 125-400,
when these questions arose. Turner is misstating the case. Hort did not do this.
He recognised the Textus receptus as being quite as old as 850 a.p. or older.
INTRODUCTION. ix
often woefully inferior in places to more modern documents of the same
citings, and often very corrapt.}
On pp. 185-6 Turner writes: ‘‘The discovery, since Hort wrote,
of a papyrus leaf containing most of the first chapter of St. Matthew
in a text closely agreeing, even in spelling of proper names, with the
text of B, may be fairly held to carry back the whole B text of the
Gospels into the third century.”
Why ‘the wHoLE B text”? I wonder. Does Turner not know
that it is unallowable for a serious textual critic so to express himself.
The four Gospels are most frequently in Mss found to be of different
recensions although bound together. After the many Christian per-
secutions during which the fragile documents of the Faith were in
jeopardy every hour, it seems that it was difficult to obtain the four
Gospels together to be recopied. Indeed—judging from certain early
Syriac documents in the British Museum, as well as from the varying
order of the Gospels as recopied and bound—it was the practice in the
early centuries to carry one or two Gospels bound together. Hence,
after the stress of a persecution had abated, and a Church copy of the
Tetra-evangelion was required, it was often unconsciously made up of
different recensions. Therefore, because B accords in St. Matthew with
the Oxyrynchus papyrus, No. 2 (plate i) vol. 1. 1898, it does not
necessarily follow that the same applies to the other three Gospels.t
This in first place. But, secondly, does B find the support claimed
by Turner here (and by Burkitt, ‘Introduction to Barnard’s Clement of
Alexandria,’ Texts and Studies, vol. v. No. 5), or is nat this exaggerated ?
The biblical piece referred to is the merest fragment, a veritable trifle,
containing Matt. i. 1-9, 12, 14-20. As to date G. and H. say: “‘ There
is no likelihood of its being subsequent to the beginning of the fourth
century, and it may with greater probability be assigned to the third.”
Shall we call it αὐ. 275 then? ‘This only carries the B text of this
portion back fifty or sixty years or so anyhow. After a collation, G. and H.
sum up thus: ‘The papyrus clearly belongs to the same class as the
Sinaitic and Vatican codices, and has no Western or Syrian proclivities.
Except in cases where it has a reading peculiar to itself alone, the
papyrus always agrees with those two Mss where they are in agreement.
Where they differ, the papyrus does not consistently follow either of
them, but is somewhat nearer the Vatican codex, especially in matters
of spelling, though in one important case (rod δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ) it
agrees with the codex Sinaiticus,”’
{ Note also the following opinions: “There is this peculiarity about the mss of the
treatise De statu animae [of Claudius Mamertus] that their value is in almost inverse
ratio to their age.’”’-—Sanday, ‘Classical Review,’ Feb. 1888.
« However, a8 we shall see later, age is no certain criterion of value.”—L. J. M. Bebb,
‘ Studia Biblica,’ vol. ii. No. 5, p. 201 (1890).
¢ Obs. Soden's us 050 with N in Matt. and John, with BD in Mark, avith B in Luke.
x CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Now hear Dr. Burkitt before we proceed (op. cit. pp. viii, x/xi) :
‘‘Mr. Barnard has. paid a longer and less hurried visit than Dean
Burgon’s flying call. He has copied out all the marked places in
Clement’s bible as far as the Gospels and Acts are concerned.....
Before actually examining Clement’s quotations let us for a moment
consider what we might have expected to find. Since the publication
of the Revised Version and Dean Burgon’s strictures on it, investiga-
tions and discoveries have been made which bear directly on the subject.
The general result is quite clear. Whether δὲ and B are, as Dean Burgon
has it, ‘two false witnesses,’ B, at least, can no longer be regarded
aS a mere ‘curiosity.’ There can now be little doubt that this ms
represents in the Gospels with great accuracy the type of text current
in Egypt from the middle of the third century A.D,, although B itself
may very well have been written at Caesarea in the famous library of
Pamphilus. The Egyptian proclivities of B have been well illustrated by
three comparatively recent publications. .... The most striking discovery
of all remains. In the Oxyrynchus papyrus fragment of St. Matthew,
discovered and edited by Grenfell and Hunt, we have at last an
undoubted piece of a third-century Gospel us. The fragment is older,
probably by a century, than any known ΜΒ of any part of the New
Testament, and most fortunately covers a passage where the variants
are extremely well marked (viz. Maté. i. 1-20). What, then, does this.
voice from the dead say? Does it support Burgon or Hort? The
answer is most decided. It sides with δὲ and B. With & and B (and
of course ‘ Westcott and Hort’) it has Boes ft for Booz, Iobed for Obed,
Asaph} for Asa. Nor is this agreement confined to the spelling of the
names of Jewish kings, seeing that it has γένεσις in Matt. i. 18 (not
yernow), ἃ reading characteristic enough of B and Dr. Hort to draw
forth three pages of Dean Burgon’s indignation. Other readings of B
similarly attested by the new fragment are δευγματίσαι for παραδευγματίσαι
(ver 19) and the omission of ὁ βασιλεὺς in ver 6, and of yap in ver 18.
Nor does the papyrus give support to ‘ Western’ texts any more than
to the ‘ Received Text.’ Both in vv. 16 and 18 it rejects the readings
of Codex Bezae and its allies. In one word, it is just such a document
as Dr. Hort would have expected it to be.” So far Burkitt,
Commenting on this, the first thing which attracts our attention is
the notice of --ο βασίλευς in ver 6, followed by the statement that “the
papyrus gives no support to ‘Western’ texts.” Yet, the omission of
6 βασίλευς is found in the Latins ὃ gi g2 k gat dim and vulgates JMC with
ft = Coptic, as the Coptic in Luke iii. 82, but there πο NB.
1 Consult Salmon, ‘Some Thoughts on Textual Criticism,’ as to this.
§ I take this opportunity of correcting a mistake in my ‘Gen. of the Versions,’
vol. ii. p, 200, where I ssid “‘[non Oxyr*]”’ for this omission. G. and H. professed to give
a collation with the Text. recept. and W-H, but were silent as to verse 6, and I failed to
conipare the original text.
INTRODUCTION.
Auct op imp. However this is a small matter.
xi
There is practically no
opportunity in these few verses for much variation. What I object to is
the generalisation as to the conformity of B to the Oxyrynchus fragment
from these very few verses.
overrated and quite spasmodic.
fragment:
CoLLATION OF B wiTH Oxy?’.
As a mutter of fact the agreement is
Here is a collation of B and the
AGREEMENT, DISAGREEMENT.
Matthew. |
i, 1 | Oxyr, ¥¥ B YIOY
i 4, ΔΑΥΙΔ B AAYEIA
3 ZAPE
4 | 4, AMMINAAAB bis B AMEILNAAAB dis
5 BOEC {but so also δὲ coptk) |
IWBHA ( 45 9 NCA cop al.) |
6 --οβασιλες ( 4, 4, NMaletlatt) ,, ΔΑΥΙΔ bis B AAYEIA bis
COAOMWNA( ,,, ,,_ most 3188) |
» THC OYPEIOY B THC TOY
| OYPEIOY
q εν» ΑΒΓΕΙΠΑ prim B ABIA
» ABEIA sec B ABIA
7/8 ACA® ( » » NOD al)
8/9 OZEIAN -OZEIAG (but papyrus is faint |
and pr loco looks like OZIAN) :
9-12" missing ᾿ = ~
12 | » GEPELNHCEN] prim BO CENNA primt
‘4, Φέϊοα B TON CEAAGIHA
i, illeg B CEAASGIHA AE
TENNA t
13 » 13/14 Oxyr. illeg but: RN ABIOYT (ef lat)
14 ; -
15 i Oxyr. MAGOAN bis B ΜΑΘΘΑΝ sic bis
16 Pog, IWCHd B TON IWCH®
17 Ϊ ». ΓΕΝΕΑΙ B Al CENEAL
fo AAYIA prim B AAYEIA prim
: 3 ΔΑΥΙΔ’ sec B AAYEIA sec
τ on ter B AGKATECCAPEG
᾿ ter
18 [ENECIC (but so also SCPSZa) - 4 TY X¥ B XY TY
yap ( ” ” NCFZ ete) i
19 ' 4, AEIPMALTIEICAlt B AGITMATICAI
20 AAYIA B AAYEIA
ἰ
Ϊ
i
Now this more complete tabulation is rather interesting.
proves Burkiit’s case as against Burgon then “ figures lie.”
+ Cf Protev’ ad Lave i. 81,
+ Burkitt claims this as against παραδειγματισαι
but it is ποῦ absolutely clear whether the papyrus
had παρα,
G, and H. merely say “ there is barely
room for rapa at the end of the line,”
Tf ié
I do not
wish to draw any conclusions against B from the comparison, but as to
the few agreements supporting the views of any particular school of
criticism the maiter is simply absurd. Far more important than ΒΟΕΟ
XH CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
IWBHA or —o βασιλεὺς is the Oxyr opposition to B’s γεννᾷ in ver 12.
And to dogmatise about a matter of 17 verses is unworthy of serious
consideration when the real weighty matters are outside of the range of
comparison. This “‘ voice from the dead’’ no more supports Hort than
Burgon. The questions at issue do not turn on spelling (and here even
the deductions drawn are wrong) but on what is the “true” text:
whether Lucian’s revision (if it equate ‘“ Antioch”) or Hesychius’
revision (if it equate “ Egypt ") is the right text. To close the matter, as
Turner suggests, is to sit down and be content with NBLTWY as repre-
senting merely an ‘‘ Egyptian” agreement inter se. But, as I have said,
what are we to do when they differ? We are certainly not going to
waver simply between δὲ and B. That would be a reductio ad absurdum.
I write this feeling most earnestly that we have much to learn from the
junior documents, and Turner is so capable a man that I dislike to read his
dictum “and that issue will never have to be tried again ”—that is to say
the issue between the later and the earlier (= NB) mss. It is not so.
The issue is not decided as to whether the ‘revision at Antioch” or the
“revision in Egypt” represents the best text. In each case it is to be
presumed that the revisers thought they were perpetuating the “ best”
text, but whether the “true” text (as the self-appointed arbiters t
of the text of the N.T. since Hort are prone to write) remains a question
still absolutely sub judice.
Before leaving Turner’s article a most important matter must be
referred to. He writes (pp. 204/5) : ‘‘ The first stages, then, of the history
of the Syriac New Testament are represented for us by- a Gospel Harmony
constructed out of a Roman Greek Ms of the Gospels i in the third quarter
of the second century..
Observe, a Boman-Greek Ms, but by this he does not mean a graeco-
latin (for on p. 184 he accepts the common view of the Latin: ‘“ the jirst
stratum of the old Latin version in the African Mss k and e”), but he
means only a Greek ms of Roman provenance. So much then is
definitely accepted today, 7.e. that Tatian’s harmony was based on a Greek
ΜΒ used by him im Rome and no doubt carried away with him circa
A.D. 175. Hence, then, the matters which we find in agreement between
Tatian and certain “ Western’ authorities. Good, so far as it goes, but
it does not go far enough. In the first place, we find in Tatian many
cases where his text agrees with the Latin, not the “ Western” Greek,
but only with the Latin. How does this occur if the Latin was non-
-
+ In the general scheme of textual criticism the examples given by Hort to sustain
his theory of families are painfully inadequate. ‘“ Syrian” or later readings are found
abounding in certain documents like Paris” side by side with what are probably judice
Hort “ pre-Syrian,” yet the text does not carry signs of a revision which made an
eclectic text. This document when carefully read bears evidence of being a whole
before a.p. 400, and the “Syrian” part of this text cannot be separated from 8
“pre-Syrian.”
INTRODUCTION. ΧΗ]
existent in Tatian’s day in Rome? The answer has been given that it is
the Diatessaron which has so largely influenced the Latin. I deny this
in a large measure and look on the contrary for the origin of this
sympathy to a Latin-Greek bilingual at Rome before a.p. 175 and not
only to a ““ Roman-Greek ms.”
If I am correct, this destroys the theory, accepted by Turner
purely on historical grounds (but how silent is history as to most of the
matters involved!), that the separate Gospels in Syriac followed and
did not precede the Harmony. Because at the outset it seems to be a
fact that the Latin did not influence the Syriac, but the Syriac the
Latin. There is a priority of action of Syriac on Latin as against Latin
on Syriac.
Therefore if there was a Graeco-Latin in Rome in 175 Δ.Ὁ., there
must have been a Syriac still earlier.
Next, if to the Diatessaron we are to attribute reflex action on Latin
documents, how are we to account for the cases where the whole mass
of Latin documents (widely separated geographically as to their recopy-
ing and revision) together ΟΡΡΟΒῈ the Syriacs ?
I have stated before and repeat here that there is every evidence
remaining in certain Greek and Latin documents, taken in conjunction
with the varying elements in the existing Mss of syr vet, syr pesh, syr hier
and the diatess arab (not to speak of pers, which combines elements of all
the Syriacs but principally of sy vet), to show that a lost or hidden Syriac
precedes them ; and that this lost Syriac influenced both Latin and Greek
documents, when running concurrently in the early part of the second
century, and before Tatian’s Diatessaron was planned. I wish to see
this disproved if possible, not by the historical method, but by a reply
based on documentary evidence, before surrendering the position to which
my study of the documents has led me.
The diatessaron alone cannot be responsible for the spasmodic agree-
ment between Latin and Syriac documents, because the various Latin
documents often as a whole oppose the Syriac documents as a whole.
Attention is directed to this in many passages coming under discussion in
the following pages, and Dr. Vogels is requested to observe this carefully.
Note Dr. Meinertz’ review of Vogels in Theologische Revue 1918, No. 18,
p. 588 col. 1, as to Luke xxiv. 12, 36, 40: “ Solche Beobachtungen weisen
auf Schwierigkeiten hin, die noch der Lésung harren.”
Preface
CONTENTS.
PART I.
Introduction
CHAPTER
IL
Iil.
IV.
Vil.
VIII.
Hort’s critical principles
B in St. Matthew's Gospel ‘
Editing—Solecisms—Latin sympathy —Coptic sympathy—
Syriac traces—Form—Synonyms — Grammatical changes
(32-44) — Harmonistic — General improvement (48-68) —
Conflict with Origen.
B in St. Mark’s Gospel
General—Editing —Solecisms—Latin ἘΠΈΓΕΒΕ τς
Latin and Coptic—Syriac—Form—Synonyms—Homoioteleu-
ton—Grammatical changes (91-104)—Harmonistic—General
improvement (107-114)—Diction of Mark—Improvement
and Change without improvemert—Opposition to the harder
reading—Conflict with Origen.
Concerning the Latin Version of St. Mark .
General—As to D* ὦ and d—aAs to b—Testimony of the
Catacombs—As to c—The Irish texts—Base of St. Mark—
Mark vi. 36—Retranslation in W—In others.
Two or more Greek recensions of St. Mark :
Selected examples of varieties of readings and renderings
throughout the Gospel.
Concerning the Latin base of St. Mark. :
Further remarks as to the unity of ὦ and the Ttala as a
whole—As to difficulties at i. 41, iv. 6, iv. 15, vi. 31, xiv. 72,
ii. 7, ii. 12—As to the Greek article— General.
Concerning the Greek of D and the. testimony of the Fathers in
St. Mark’s Gospel é
Concluding remarks — The methods of De - Patristic
testimony—Clement of Alexandria (x. 22 seg.) —Tertullian
(xiv. 18)—Justin (viii. 31).
Map of Courses of Transmission of St. Mark’s Gospel
B in St. Luke’s Gospel =.
Editing —The longer text in B—Solecisms-—Latin sympathy
—(N.T. use of ἕως 221/5)—Coptic—Latin and Coptic—Syriac
traces—Syr-Lat against Coptic—Syr-Lat and Coptic—Syr-
Copt against Latin—Synonyms—Form—Grammatical changes
(242-263) — Genitive before the noun—Harmonistic —
“ Neutral” “ Pre-Syrian ” ‘“ Pre-Alexandrian” misnomers—
General improvement, ete. (272-297)—Conflict with Origen.
PAGES
1-V1
vii—xili
1-13
14-71
72-125
126-139
140-171
172-194
195-206
207
208-298
CHAPTER
CONTENTS.
TX. Bin St. John’s Gospel
X.
Editing — Solecisms — Latin sy mpathy -- Coptic — The
corrector of B—Coptic and Latin—Syriac traces—On_ ἐκεῖνος
in St. John—Form—Synonyms—Homoioteleuton and homoio-
arcton—Compound and simple verbs, on ἐρχομαι and διερχομαι
(344-347)—Grammatical changes (348-363)—Order—Con-
cerning ix. 21 and the Diatess.—Hopelessness of considering
B neutral—Harmonistic—Conflation—General improvement
(374-396)—Change without improvement—-Indeterminate—
Conflict with Origen.
Epilogue .
Luke xxii. 43/44. Medical language of St. Lnke—As to
γενόμενος and eyevero—xxiii. 34 new evidence for and against—
Ag to Ccumenius—Hesychius and Origen—Dean Burgon’s
position—Codex B outside the Gospels (416-419)—Patristic
testimony—Finesse of B—“ Higher” and “ Lower ” criticism
—Further test of “ Neutral” text applied to second-century
witnesses, Aristides, Theodotus, Athenagoras, Theophilus,
Naasseni, Hippolytus, Marcion, ete.—Hustathius and Antioch
—On changing symbols of codices—Singular cursive testimony
(435-454)—Von Soden’s N.T.—The Κοινή (458-460)—As to
Merx, Ramsay and Soden—Burkitt, Merx and Vogels—The
verdict—Hortian heresy—Other pscudo-scientific heresies,
Robinson Smith, Dean Inge on St. Paul, efe.—Conclusion.
Postscript (on περι and υπερ)
General Index .
PART IT.—VOUL. II.
VARIATIONS BETWEEN δὲ AND B.
St. Matthew. : : ᾿ ἢ ᾿ δ Ἶ
St. Mark
St. Luke
St. John
Postscript (“ Gleanings ”)
Index of Scriptural Quotations, covering vol. I. and vol. IT. :
XV
PAGES
299-405
406-187
488
489-497
1-57
58-112
113-195
196-341
343-582
383-412
Views of Dr. Satmon, ‘Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the
New Testament,’ London, 1897.
“Yet, great as has been my veneration for Horf and my admiration of the
good work that he has done, I have never been able to feel that his work was
tinal, and I bave disliked the servility with which his history of the text has
been accepted, and even his nomenclature adopted, as if now the last word had
been said on the subject of New Testament criticism ....” (p. 33).
“That which gained Hort so many adherents had some adverse influence
with myself—I mean his extreme cleverness as an advocate; for I have felt as
if there were no reading so improbable that he could not give good reasons for
thinking it to be the only genuine... .” (p. 33/4).
“On this account I am not deterred by the general adoption of W-H’s
decisions from expressing my opinion that their work has too readily been
accepted as final, and that students have been too willing to accept as their motto
‘Rest and be thankful.’ There is no such enemy to progress as the belief that
perfection has been already attained.” (p. 38).
“In Hort’s exposition the student is not taken with him along the path
that he himself had followed; he must start with the acceptance of the final
result, Consequently one of the first things at which I took umbrage in W-H’s
exposition was the question-begging nomenclature.” (p. 43).
“T strongly feel that Hort would have done better if he had left the old
nomenclature undisturbed, and distinguished his neutral text from that which he
calls ‘ Alexandrian’ by the names ‘early Alexandrian’ and ‘later Alexandrian.’
Names will not alter facts, though they may enable us to shut our eyes to them... .”
(p. 52).
‘Naturally Hort regarded those Mss as most trustworthy which give the
readings recognized by Origen; and these no doubt were the readings which in
the third century were most preferred at Alexandria. Thus Hort’s method
inevitably led to the exclusive adoption of the Alexandrian text.” (p. 53).
“To sum up in conclusion, I have but to express my belief that what
Westcott and Hort have restored is the text which had the highest authority in
Alexandria in the third century, and may have reached that city in the preceding
one. It would need but to strike out the double brackets from the so-called
non-Western interpolations, and to remove altogether the few passages which
W-H reluctantly admitted into their pages with marks of doubt, when we
should have a pure Alexandrian text. Their success is due to the fact that
W-H investigated the subject as a merely literary problem; and the careful
preservation at Alexandria of a text which had reached that city was but a
literary problem.” (p. 155).
“That W-H should employ the Alexandrian ‘use’ as their chief guide to
the recovery of the original text may be quite right; but that they should refuse
a place on their page to anything that has not that authority is an extreme which
makes me glad that the Revised New Testament, which so closely follows their
authority, has not superseded the Authorized version in our Churches. For, if
it had, the result might be that things would be accounted unfit to be read in
the churches of the nineteenth century which were read at Rome in the second
century, during the lifetime of men who had seen members of the apostolic
company who had visited their city.” (pp. 157/8).
PART 1.
‘Hort (p. 171) makes the suggestive remark that documents which have most
Alexandrian have also most ‘neutral’ readings. It is a little surprising that he did
not draw the obvious inference that this is because the documents which contain the
neutral readings are Alexandrian.’’—Salmon, op. cit. p. 52, note.
‘* However there is nothing that Hort fights more against than the idea that his
neutral text can properly be called ‘Alexandrian,’ He eagerly catches at the notion
that B, its principal representative, was written, not at Alexandria, but probably at
Rome. The reasons for regarding the text of B as Alexandrian remain the same no
matter where this particular MS chanced to be copted.”—Salmon, op. cit. p. 60.
CHAPTER. I.
CopEXx B.
Horr’s CriTicaL PRINCIPLES.
Dr. Horr sought for a “neutral” text, uninfluenced by ‘‘ Western,”’
* Alexandrian,” and ‘“ Syrian” readings, and claimed to have found it
in B alone. This view has been accepted in England, and nearly as
much in Germany, although the late Adalbert Merx did his best to
discredit B as a foundation text, and to put the matter in the right light
to his countrymen. Great has been our loss by the death of Blass and
Merx, and more recently still by that of Nestle.
Tt seems time to call attention to the lack of basis for Hort’s
theory, because scholars and writers still speak of a “neutral text”
(by which B or readings supported by B is practically always implied),
whereas the present writer knows of no such text.
There is ample ground for the opposite view that B had already
been influenced by the Syriac and the Latin version, besides the
peculiarities visible in the B text, many of which are grammatical and
some seemingly due to Egyptian surroundings.
Hitherto we have not known fully the history of textual criticism
in Greek Egypt, but every important document, including the new W,
which has affinity for the B group, ties the matter more and more down
to Egyptian soil, and this simplifies the problem. When W and the
cursives of the family oppose B we must weigh these places carefully.
Leaving aside the claims made in the Introduction of W-H, the
principles upon which the text was founded as it left Hort’s hands are
fixed for ever, and graven in stereotype for us; and those principles are
reduced to one rule, viz., to follow B whenever that ms has any support,
B
2 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
be it only the adhesion of one other ms. This is seen (in one Gospel
for example) in conjunctions of BL soli at Luke xi. 12, of BT sol at
Luke xiii. 27,f of 8B solt at Luke xviii. 12, xix. 48, of BA sold at
Luke xxi. 24, of BK soli at Luke xiv. 1 (square brackets) and of B fam
18 solt at Luke vi. 42.
Further, readings of B absolutely alone are dignified by textual
notice. Matt. vii. 18 ἐνεγκεῖν. «ποίειν is read absolutely alone by B (see
note on this elsewhere), and in Luke iii. 33 του apsvada8, omitted only
by B, finds no place in Hort’s text; observe also Luke v. 2 πλοία δυο
order of B alone among Greeks; v. 3 εκ τον πλοιου εδιδασκεν B alone ;
the omissions by B only of av’ Luke xii. 58, of ἐν Luke x. 31, of προς
avrov Luke ix. 62 are enclosed in square brackets; or they are given a
place in the margin (as if ‘many ancient authorities read thus’’) as
σταυρωσαι Luke xxiii. 23, θροηθεντες Luke xxiv. 37. Observe also the
extraordinary εἰς τὸ ev τρυβλίον Mark xiv. 20 by B alone, forced into
Hort’s text in square brackets because C* ?? possibly read thus.
In the light of this, had B left out in John xiv. 6 καὶ ἡ αληθεια
in the threefold claim “1 am the way and the truth and the life,” which
Evan 157 does, it is practically certain that Hort’s text would have done
so also. Had B added ἐντρεπτίκὴ in Luke xviii. ὃ as an attribute of the
importunate widow, as does Evan 28, we should surely have found
it in Hort’s text.§ Had B omitted ἐν αὐτὴ τὴ wpa in Luke xii. 12
with 33 and Origen we should have been favoured with this omission.
Had B omitted τὴν before πίστιν in Luke xviii. 8 with Ὁ 240 244 we
should have been asked so to read. Soden adds two fresh cursives for
omission.
Had B added o enoous after ta θαυμασια a εποιησεν in Matt. xxi. 15,
as does Evan 28 with Origen and syr hier and i! (α ὃ ὁ 6 7 fis gah rs
μ dim gat Wurz" vg?®8®) we should certainly have found it in Hort’s
text [ὦ σι 1 ᾳ vg®' do not add, but ¢ does. Tisch. errs in the N.T. as to
this witness]. Soden adds 6 30 and ¢ 1091 for this. Observe Origen
and r, alone omit ev Tw sepw in this verse.
Had W-H known that Sod 604 supported B at Luke viii. 25 for
the omission of και υπακουουσιν αὐτῶ we should doubtless have lost the
¢ Such mss can easily be shown to be but one in stem. For instance B*R
together alone at Luke v. 30 eyyoyv(ay for ἐγγογυζον, and again vi. 23 εν τοις ουρανοις
for ev τω ovpavw. For some reason WH do not like this combination. R is the
famous v" century ms from the Nitrian desert. In the second case the BR combination
is supported by fam 18 and ten other minuscules and by e f goth Cypr.
} Many are the places where NBL are followed alone, and this also represents but
one single tradition.
§ This is ἃ reductio ad absurdum of the critical principles which people do not
seem to grasp or follow. This would have resulted in perpetuating blunders of two
mss contra mundwm. Many others, probably as grievous, are to be found in the text.
It is thereby rendered unfit for serious study as a whole, and must be banished from
our class rooms.
HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 3
clause, especially as aeth favours this omission also, and W-H must have
sought at that time in vain for another Greek witness. The same applies
to Luke vi. 26 —o: ratepes αὐτων B 604 (+ sah syr sin), neglected by
W-H, yet vi. 81 -- καὶ ὑμεῖς B then alone (omitted in W-H txt) has
support of 604 and Paris’. There is absolutely no science in intro-
ducing Oponfevres into the margin of Luke xxiv. 37 on the authority
of B alone and in neglecting to record in the margin at viii. 25 that B
omits καὶ υπακουουσιν αὐτῶ, especially as aeth shows it is not an
accident. For observe that at Luke iii. 8 on the sole authority of B and
Origen they introduce the order ἀξίους xaprrovs into their margin. While
at x. 1 —avtovs Β e Eus (now supported by 604 and Paris” and Sods ἢ)
is not omitted by W-H. Atvii.47 +xas ante oduy. ayaa B*! [negl Hort]
is added by 892 Paris*’.
I do not want to multiply ad nauseam instances of arbitrary
judgement. These remarks should suffice as to definite examples of
the unscientific use of the margin as well as of the text whether
bracketed or not. For it is to be observed that at Luke ix. 62 W-H
bracket πρὸς αὐτὸν in the text on the sole authority of B; as a matter
of fact however 604 omits also (and sah 1/3) which they did not know.
The whole treatment of such things is entirely unequal. I wish to
point out that their intuition in such matters was quite wrong, because
a little further in Luke x. 1 they leave αὐτοὺς alone and do not brand
or bracket it although B omits. Yet here B had support from e Hus#™
and now we find that both 604 and Paris” also omit. Had Hort known
this he would of course have banished it. It is useless for Souter to
get up and defend Hort on any specious plea which I may offer him
by stating the matter thus. Souter’s own text condemns Hort’s method
while he still clings with a curious loyalty to the man.t
Further as to Origen, observe Luke xviii. 31 τελειωθησεται (for τελεσ-
@noerat), which is found in Paris®’ 60 y** δῦ and some other important
cursives, is Origen’s reading, yet not found in NB.
Or as at Luke xxii. 4 where Orig reads ows (and Hus wa), with the
18 family only, for ro πως of NB and all the rest [except D ὦ arm πως;
d follows D with guomodo against guemadmodum of the rest].
Or as at Matt. xv. 22 where 1 [non fam] and Origen read Sewws for
κακως, but not NB or any others known (although there may be other
cursives) ; δείνως occurs at Matt. viii. 6 and Luke xi. 53.
Or at Matt. xvi. 25 fin for evpnoe: avrnv where Orig Iren and fam 1 33
read ovtws σωσει avTny,
Or as at Luke xxii. 22 where Origen (recollecting eypayrev περι αὐτου
of Matt Marc) adds avtw after tw ὠρίσμενον with sah syr hier, syr cu [non
sin] aeth περ αὐτου. Had B done this we should have been told it was
+ Dr. Souter has informed me since this was written that he had nothing to do with the
text itself of the Oxford edition of 1910 and that he favors the Hort text practically entire.
Β ἃ
4 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Lucan. It is clearly an addition, as sah mss are divided among them-
selves, four for avrw, and one for περί αὐτου; while syr sin by its silence
accuses cz of harmonizing.
Origen says we must pay attention to the letter of Scripture down to
the very presence or absence of an article in the Greek. Yet observe
what he does at Luke xxii. 10/Mark xiv. 13. For at Luke xxii. 10 he
uses St. Mark’s avavtnces with D min® (against vravtnces CLX, and
συναντησεῖ NB unc" rell), while at Mark xiv. 13 he incorporates into the
narrative εἰσελθοντων ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν πολιν from Luke xxii. 10 with only
fam 13 28 91-299 2Pe,
Again, at Matt. xx. 13 he is to be observed very carelessly on both
sides of the question. Once *” with LZ 33 sah boh syr sin aeth Nyss
writing ovys Syvapiov συνεφωνησα σοι, and again *, again thro’ int 3.007 gry,
Snvapiov συνεφωνησας μοι with NB and all the rest, and laté syr rell arm
Auct? imp et de voc gent’ This place should be very carefully considered.
Was the archetype of LZ 33 then on Origen’s desk and annotated
by him to conform to a turn of the versions ?
‘We have another illustration of Origen’s rank carelessness in St.
Mark’s Gospel. In one place, *”” concerning Mark xi. 1, he says pre-
cisely : “καὶ 0 μαρκος Se κατὰ Tov τόπον ouTws aveyparpe* Kat οτε εγγιξουσιν
εἰς ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ εἰς βηθανιαν pos...” and again *74 “Ἴδωμεν de περι
της βηθφαγη μεν κατα ματθαιον, βηθανιας δε κατα papKov, βηθφαγη δὲ
και βηθανιας κατα Tov λουκαν.᾽᾽
Nothing could be plainer as to the Marcan reading of εἰς Ιεροσολυμα
kat εἰς βηθανιαν without εἰς βηθῴφαγη, and yet when in another place
Origen comes to write out Mark xi. 1-12 he has there εἰς sepocodupa εἰς
βηθῴφαγη και βηθανιαν.
We note in these two places—these two codices as it were—of Origen
that they vary in the spelling of ev@us and evfews (xi. 3) and doubtless
he was using different copies, without realizing it, when he penned the
two passages. For instance in the one place (ver. 2) he leaves out ov7w,
in the other it is present; again ver. 3 he leaves out in one place παλιν, in
the other it is present.
Again ver.3 one place τι ποίειτε rovro; in the other τὸ Avere Tov πωλον
with D.
Ver. 4 one place καὶ ἀπῆλθον in the other καὶ ἀπέλθοντες
» oo Oupay i an την θυραν
» 939 Τὸν πῶλον diserte ,, two others πωλον.
Further than that Origen does a thing at Matt xviii. 27 which throws
a lurid light on the proceedings of the entire coterie, whose joint
testimony we are asked to accept and whose mutual support is considered
to bolster up the individual witness of a very small clan. This place
both dates several witnesses and affords much help.
I refer to this substitution: For καὶ to Savetov adynxev avtw, Origen
with 1 only and ff; sah boh (ex xviii. 82) says πάσαν τὴν οφείλην.
HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 5
Origen’s quotation, as given in Tischendorf, is o de σπλαγχνίσθευς em avTw
KUpLOS οὐκ «.. ἀφῆκεν aVTOV povoy ἀλλα... πασαν THY οφείλην αὐτω. While
this does not convict Origen absolutely of appropriating the wording of
verse 32, and inserting it in verse 27, it comes so near to it that 1 and
sah boh must have thought it a good idea to make the transfer. In other
words they were following Origen, as Vulgate mss followed Jerome’s
other writings. (Soden adds his family ¢*.)
The principal point is this (for NB do not agree to make the
substitution): For many verses previously the testimony of Evan 1
(without 118-209) has been bolstering up B. I use this expression
advisedly, for on the testimony in Matt xviii. 25 of B 156 58 124 Orig 1/2
Hort has inserted in his text eyes WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST MARGINAL
ALTERNATIVE. Evan 1 is contradicted by 118-209, 124 is contradicted by
the rest of its family ; 56 and 58 are of no account whatever [Dobbin is
silent as to 61], for they are most notorious polyglot abusers of the truth,
and Origen contradicts himself. They have been used here simply to
bolster up B in his use of the historic present [see elsewhere under this
head ].
Again, upon the testimony of B 1 124 (again against their families)
and sah 4/7 we are asked in Matt xviii. 27 to suppress exewov [by Hort in
square brackets |.
Now such mss do not really support B as a neutral text at all, for
we find that 1 and sah and Origen are all in the same circle playing
tricks on us; as at xvili. 27 in this very same verse where they ask us to
read πασαν thy οφείλην for το δανειον.
This dates the vagaries and other like ones observable in 1 Orig
and copt, and makes us demur to use them as supporters of B as a
neutral text. On the contrary B is supporting them for an Egyptian
and private post-Origenian recension. I will illustrate further :—
Matt. xvii. 8. Hort prints αὐτον Incovy povov. This is read by B and
by B only. δὲ supports with Incouy avroy μονον, both readings
being obtained via the Coptic by δὲ and B. Hort did not
know this, for the Coptic or Syriac has never been alleged
in the critical apparatus as containing this αὐτὸν, nor does
Horner connect the readings of NB with Coptic in his sah
apparatus. Butitseems perfectly clear to me where NB got the
avrov. Hort’s margin has τὸν in place of avrov. [Sod = B.]
14, ἐλθοντων (-- αυτω)ὺ NBZ 1 124 245 sah is the only support.
Hort’s text gives no alternative, and we are to swallow the
reading of this vicious little circle (whose joint eclecticism is
now in process of demonstration) against Origen because it
is a “shorter” text. Hort counts seven witnesses I suppose,
but it is merely one.
xviii. 1. Hort’s margin is dignified by the addition of δὲ here, to read
ev εκεινὴ δὲ TH wpa With BM ὁ sah®® boh°™, These are the
6 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt.
only witnesses (καὶ syr cu). Boh™ ¢ is very suggestive,
against the shorter text for Gr™ Lapr™ Syr*4 Orig.
xviii. 11. Another similar little coterie (observe the members are never
homogeneous) ask us to omit this verse altogether. It is
composed of NBL* 1 (against family) 13 (against family) 33
892* ὁ ffi sah boh! syr sin hier and Orig, and Hort promptly
accepts their verdict with much gusto, referring in his margin
to the Appendix, where three half-column lines are devoted to
explain that it is ‘Interpolated either from Luke xix. 10 (a
different context) or from an independent source written or
oral.” Where were NL above if right here? Why was Orig
on the other side above? I mean merely that the whole
editorial process is intuitive and has no scientific foundation
whatever.
16. Hort’s margin receives the order παράλαβε ere eva ἡ ὃνο μετα
cov of B ff and boh (these only). Where is the science?
B is evidently the controlling factor. But B got this from
looking atf an Egyptian copy of the Scriptures with this
order (cf. also sah).
To go back a little xvi. 21 iC XC stands in Hort’s text without the
alternative 0 1c. I beg to say that only &*B* read thus (both corrected)
and that their only support is sah?/? bofom Practer duo. Whereas N* 892
Orig and Iren omit altogether.
If right here then in the name of all that is consistent why does
Hort reject the +7ore in xiv. ὃ of B and fam 13 with sah most decidedly :
“ev tovtw Tw kaw”? Even & suggests it with “cum detinuisset”
against “‘Herodes enim tenuit’’ but Hort prints xpatnoas.$ For at
viii. 18 Hort does not scruple to accept B and sah alone for his text
of oyAoy against oydovs etc. And at ii. 21 he reads εἰσηλθεν (for
ἤλθεν) NBC alone, merely confirmed by sah boh aqRwK Eg, pat ac
eDorsit
Now these conjunctions NB and NBC and NBD have been given
too much weight when insufficiently supported otherwise.
Observe xii. 17 wa (pro oras) NBCD 1 33 Orig Hus boh. If I
oppose this I shall be told that I am a madman, and that this evidence is
absolutely conclusive. I deny it. And I point to vui. 34 where wa
(pro o7res) is read by B alone and boh. [Soden adds nothing. ]
Hort does not follow B here in viii. 34, but why not? If ee is
neutral in xii. 17, why not in viii. 34? Bohairic uses it in both places.
Did Hort have a glimmer that B after all was copied from a Graeco-
Coptic ms and that pita caught B’s eye instead of o7ws? If so, where
is the neutral text ?
The same remark applies to ews and ews od. In Matt. xviii. 30
1 As N in Matt. xiv. 1 etc. rerpaapyns more copt. ἱ Soden’s text accepts +rore with ™,
HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 7
NBCL write ews avodw for ews οὗ amodw of the rest; but in xviii. 34,
only four verses beyond, B alone writes ews aod. (See full list in
Luke.) Possibly ov is dropped for fear of confusion with ov.
After a thorough re-examination of the subject I re-affirm my
belief that however good a base the ms B may have in places, it is
absolutely to be disregarded as representing any such thing as a
“neutral” text; that in many places it is as far removed from
“neutrality” as night from day; that “neutrality ’’ can alone be sought
among the documents which are in agreement with the witnesses of
pre-Origenian date.
To rank B ‘neutral’ as a whole is to discredit testimony of
Clement of Alexandria when supported by a host of witnesses; to
discredit Tertullian and Hpiphanius jointly when they reproduce
faithfully the text of Marcion [as regards language, not as regards
brevity], equally supported by a large array of authorities; to discredit
much of the “‘ western” text even when it is undoubtedly the ‘‘ shortest,”
in the face of two differing lines of addition, with or without conflation
of these two lines; to discredit Origen himself when he opposes B
but has good support otherwise; to discredit the old Syriac when
opposing B in favour of δὲ or of D; and finally to shut the door on
a possible neutral text reproduced in no Gk. mss extant but witnessed
to strongly by pre-Origenian Fathers, backed by Latin, Syriac, or
Coptic Mss. (Cf Adalbert Merx, 11. Theil, 1. Halfte p. 20, etc.)
I re-affirm my belief that a polyglot text influenced δὲ throughout.t
AndI charge B with being the child of a Graeco-Latin recension, and by
its scribe or by its parent of being tremendously influenced by a Coptic
recension or by a Graeco-sahidic and a Graeco-bohairic us.
I cannot allow that NB influenced the sahidic or bohairic versions
(except perhaps a few separate mss of each or either of them); for the
sympathy visible between δὲ or B or both and the Coptic versions
is ἃ sympathetic bond which antedates the Mss δὲ and B, and which
contributes to place these versions (where they oppose NB) on an
independent footing implying a Greek text of older date than that of NB,
and when supported by other good witnesses to be followed.
And I charge Westcott and Hort with having utterly failed to
produce any semblance of a “neutral” text. I charge them with the
offence of repeated additions to the narrative on most insufficient
evidence.
I charge the Oxford edition of 1910 with continual errors in accepting
Westcott and Hort’s text for many verses together where the absence
{ In the list of differences between δὶ and B in Part II will be found plenty of
material to support this proposition.
1 Proof to this effect may be seea throughout the following pages.
8 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
of footnotes shows that the editors consider their text as settled. I
acknowledge and make confession freely that the Revisers have retraced
steps in a number of places and ejected Hort’s readings sometimes even
without the pro and con in a footnote, where Hort blindly followed a
phantasma of evidence. But this text is still founded on too high a
regard for B, and I pray for an entire reconsideration of the matter in the
light of what follows.
One word here as to the ‘“‘ Western” text may not be out of place.
Upon many occasions this ‘‘ Western” text is the one which furnishes
the shortest text (against B). We have been taught that the ““ Western ”’
text is the one which has the most additions and accretions. This
feature is quite distinct from the other, and whether the additions be all
glosses or not, the other feature of omission has to be separately
considered as to its bearing on the basic or fundamental text for purity
or shortness, for the text of D is, as we know from Clement of Alex., one
which was in Egypt very early, at a date before the ‘ African” Latin
was known, is confirmed often by W, and has come down to us less
influenced by side influences than the other recensions.
Take one instance. At Luke xix. 2 there are great varieties of
reading, where D d ὁ and sah preserve the shortest text, giving us (as to
Zaccheus) simply πλουσιος for καὶ πλουσιος of 1 8, καὶ nv πλουσιος of NL
245 892 goth syr hier (and W-H marg), καὶ πλουσιὸος nv boh syr cu sin, καὶ
autos πλουσίιος BKII big vg (W-H tat), καὶ avtos nv πλουσίιος U al. latt, καὶ
ovtos ἣν πλουσιος A unc® al. f, ovros nv πλουσίος W 108 157, πλουσιος nv
ante Kat ἀρχιτέλωνης syr pesh, πλουσίος (tantum) ante καὶ ἀρχιτέλωνης
diatess arab, (V and Evst 47 omit altogether). W-H adopt B’s reading
in text and &’s in marg, and neglect D d ὁ sah (diatess) altogether. Then
why at Luke xxiv. 12, 36, 40, 51, 52 double-bracket the ‘“‘ Western non-
interpolations’? ? Where is the science involved of the “shorter”’ text ὃ
Dr. Salmon (‘Some Thoughts,’ eéc. Ὁ. 98) says “1 am persuaded that
critics will be forced to acknowledge that the Gospel as read in the
1" century in the Church of Rome differed in a few particulars from that
read at the same date at Alexandria. Critics may discuss which of these
texts is authoritative, or whether both may be so; but I am sure that an
arbitrarily created hybrid between the two is wrong; and this is the kind
of text more than once exhibited by W-H in the closing verses of
St. Luke.”
The claim of W-H to have resurrected the texts of Origen certainly
holds good except in certain places. But in doing so they far exceed
Origen’s own claim. Origen’s citations are full of conflations, where he
knew two recensions and incorporated both. If he was not able to judge
which of these was original, why should he be a perfect judge of other
double readings similarly situated but of which he chose one? Now
W-H profess that they have not only restored the text of Origen but that
they know that this is “‘ pre-Syrian”’ and “ pre-Alexandrian” and, as
HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 9
represented by B, is “ neutral” and fundamentally correct as opposed to
all others. Their “selected readings,’ few and far between, can
certainly not be considered proof of their contention, and we are prepared
to challenge their assumption as to the supremacy of B. Meanwhile we
would like to place on record again what Canon Cook had to say about
the personality of Origen in connection with these matters, for that
feature is of vital importance. The Church at large disagreed with
Origen’s conclusions. W-H after nearly 1700 years merely wish to replace
us textually in the heart of an Alexandrian text, which after a.p. 450 or
thereabouts fell into discredit and disuse. For Dr. Salmon says (‘Some
Thoughts,’ etc. pp. 106/7) : “ Giving to the common parent of B and δὲ as
high antiquity as is claimed for it, still it will be distant by more than
a century from the original autographs, and the attempts to recover
the text of mss which came to Alexandria in the second century may
be but an elaborate locking of the stable door after the horse has been
stolen.”
Again the same authority (pp. 128/9): ‘“‘ When W-H refuse to
give a local name to the readings they prefer, and designate them
as neutral, that is to say, as free from corruptions of various kinds,
they are disguising from themselves and from their readers that the
question what text has the most early attestation cannot be decisively
answered.”
And again (pp. 181/182): “Thus the task of discrimination may be
difficult ; but we must not conceive that we have solved a problem because
for our convenience we have simplified it. The problem has not been
completely solved until we have taken account of the evidence which has
been temporarily neglected.”
And again (p. 157): “1 hold, on the contrary, that in critical science
the rule nullum tempus prevails; that it is never too late to reverse a
wrong decision.”
And now to hear what Canon Cook has to say about Origen :—
“We go back one step further, a most critical and important step, for
it brings us at once into contact with the greatest name, the highest
genius, the most influential person of all Christian antiquity. We come
to Origen. And it is not disputed that Origen bestowed special pains
upon every department of Biblical criticism and exegesis. His
‘Hexapla’ is a monument of stupendous industry and keen discern-
ment: but his labours on the Old Testament were thwarted by his
very imperfect knowledge of Hebrew, and by the tendency to mystic
interpretations common in his own age, but in no other writer so fully
developed or pushed to the same extremes.
‘In his criticism of the New Testament Origen had greater
+ However Origen and B are not infrequently in conflict. Observe Hort on those
occasions. See beyond at the end of my notes on each Gospel.
10 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
advantages, and he used them with greater success. Every available
source of information he studied carefully. Manuscripts and versions were
before him; both manuscripts and versions he examined, and brought out
the results of his researches with unrivalled power. But no one who
considers the peculiar character of his genius, his subtlety, his restless
curiosity, his audacity in speculation, his love of innovation, will be
disposed to deny the extreme risk of adopting any conclusion, any
reading, which rests on his authority, unless it is supported by the
independent testimony of earlier or contemporary Fathers and Versions.
The points in which we are specially entitled to look for innovations
are: (1) curious and ingenious readings, such, for instance, as those
which we have noticed in St. Mark and St. Luke; (2) the removal
of words, clauses, or entire sentences which a man of fastidious taste
might regard as superfluities or repetitions’ [see my remarks on “ pairs”
and Origenistic “‘ niceties’”’]; “ (8) a fearless and highly speculative mode
of dealing with portions of the New Testament which might contain
statements opposed to his prepossessions or present difficulties which
even his ingenuity might be unable to solve. In weighing the evidence
of his citations for or against any doubtful reading, while we should feel
assured of his perfect honesty of purpose, we ought to be extremely
cautious in adopting his conclusions. A text formed more or less
directly under his influence would of course command a certain amount
of general adhesion; it would approve itself most especially to minds
similarly gifted and similarly developed; when brought to bear upon
the course of critical enquiry it would produce an enormous effect,
especially if it came with the charm and interest of novelty; but not
less certainly would it be challenged, and its verdict be refused, if it
contravened principles of fundamental importance and affected the
veracity of the sacred writers and the teaching of Holy Writ.” (Canon
Cook, ‘ Revised Version of the first three Gospels,’ pp. 155/6.)
Hear also Bishop Marsh on the same subject (‘ Lect.’ xi. ed. 1838,
p. 482): ‘Whenever therefore grammatical interpretation produced a
sense which in Origen’s opinion was irrational or impossible, in other
words irrational or impossible according to the philosophy which Origen
had learnt (sic) at Alexandria, he then departed from the literal sense.”
This sums up many other matters connected with Origen’s treat-
ment of textual matters (to which the following pages bear witness), so
that we do not necessarily recover Origen’s manuscripts when we are
inclined to follow NB Orig, but very likely only Origen himself. (The
ΜΒ 83 seems to represent a copy annotated by Origen himself with
suggested “improvements.” They are sometimes together quite alone.
The same applies to the ms 127, and observe that 127 is related toa graeco-
latin: Matt. xxii. 9 προς (pro ets) 127 sol = latt AD exttus viarum.)
To begin at the very beginning, when Hort says:
“ But we have not been able to recognise as Alexandrian any
ALEXANDRIAN READINGS OF B. 11
readings of B in any book of the New Testament which ἐὲ
contains ’’ (vol. ii. Ὁ. 150)
had he never noticed the frequent preference given by B (and δ) to
eavtov and εαὐτῶν over avtovand αὐτων In order to keep small detail
out of my apparatus I began stupidly enough by not chronicling these
things in δὲ and B, but some examples will be found. Now turn to
Clement of Alexandria and see his preference for the same course: (on
Matt. xx, 28, Mark x. 45) καὶ δουναι τὴν ψυχὴν την εαυτοῦ.
Then turn to Athanasius :
1 Pet. iv. 19 (where B alone omits αὐτῶν after ψυχας) Ath says tas
eavTwy ψυχας in the coptic manner.
Observe further :°
(1) Jo.x.81. “εβαστασαν sine copula cum NBL 33” says Tischendorf.
Follow the apparatus a little further and you find ATHANASIUS,
Surely then this is an Alexandrian reading. Observe further
that after two words more ATHANASIUS drops οὐ sovdatoe with
the new Egyptian ms W, and the Alexandrian picture is
complete there.
() Jo. xvii. 15 referred to by Burgon as to an omission by B and
Ath is questionable.
(2) Matt. xii. 81. αφεθησεται vurv tos avOpwros B 1 sah and
ATHANASIUS only. "Ἢ
(3) Matt. xxvi. 45. δου -Ἐγαρ BE and sah ΑΤΈΡ,
(4) Luke xi. 19. αὐτοί υὑμων «pitas ecovrat BD 604 Paris*’ only of
Greeks, a,¢ dt of Latins, with ATHANASIUS, choosing this
order out of five or six differmg orders by the other
authorities.
(5) 15.0.1. 18. -- οὐδὲ ex θέληματος avdpos B* 17* Hus Clemtisvd and
Arnants vid Ps, xxi,
(6) Jo. v. 87. exewvos (pro αὐτο NBULW a (goth) and ATHANASIUS
(Ὁ ὦ exewvos avros), Om avros 892 = syr cu pers georg.
This exetvos is so thoroughly Johannine in such a connection that
it is difficult to judge whether it may be basic or only an
endeavour by NBLW Ath to improve the passage to a
conformity with Johannine diction. But the action of D is
suspicious. See as to exevvos beyond under “‘ Syriac’’ heading
in St. John’s Gospel at iv. 11.
(7) Jo. vi. 42. πως νυν (pro πως ov”) BCT W bok?! goth syr hier
only and ArHanasrus4 (teste Tasch). Add Sod.
(8) Jo. x. 82 fin. Order >eue AOatere of NBL 88 157 Paris®’ Sod"?
only of Greeks, but of 2é! vg, is the order of ATH. against
DW and the rest and ὁ ὦ f 1 ὃ sah boh syr goth Epiph Hu
+ And this matter has some bearing upon our contention as to “pairs” of
expressions,
HORT’S SYSTEM. EGYPT FREE FROM ANTIOCH BY REVISION. 18
Paris” is not extant for control in St. Matthew in Schmidtke’s
edition, and V only begins at Mark ix. 6, but 892 is valuable in Matthew.
I do not overlook the fact that the side opposed to NB sometimes
also tried its hand at improvement. See Matt. xv. 6 τὴν εντολην
(ew Marco vii. 8) for tov Aoyov of BD and versions, but even here δὲ is not
agreed with B and writes tov νομὸν with CT* fam 18 and Ptol. The
support of Ptol puts τὸν νομὸν into the second century, and is not far
removed from τὴν εντολην.
Burkitt says:
“The Antiochian Greek text seems never to have influenced
Kgypt—at least not before the x** century. Freedom from
specifically ‘Antiochian’ readings is a characteristic of all
forms of the Egyptian N.T.”—Burkitt in ‘ Texts and Versions,’
Encyc. Bibl. 1903.
But precisely because long ago Hgypt had revised this Antiochian
text.
This revising process will now engage our attention for many
pages.
12 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Thdt. When NBL oppose sah boh and have Athanasius
with them we may surely take it into account.
(9) Jo. xii. 28. δοξασον pov to ovoya (pro δοξ. cov to ονομα)ὴ B™
cum Evan 5. But sol X and Arwanasius δοξασον cov τον
νιον (Cyr refers to both).
(10) Jo. xv. 21. αλλα ταυτα παντὰ ποιησουσιν εἰς υμας BD*LN? 1 88
Paris” Petra, all others ὑμᾶς or υμ. ὁ
(11) Jo. xix. 81. 9 nwepa ἐκείνη tov σαββατοῦυ (pro ἡ ἡμέρα exetvov
του caBBarov B*H min pauc Elz pers c f g vgg and Cyril,
all others exesvov.
(12) 1 Peter i. 11. Of the prophets of old: ερευνωντες εἰς Twa ἡ ποιὸν
καιρὸν εδηλουτο ev αὑτοῖς πνευμα (-- Χριστου) προμαρτυρομενον
τα εἰς Χριστον παθηματα.... B
Von Soden now adds the testimony of ATHANASIUS to that of Β for
omission of Xpicrov. In the Benedictine edition of 1698 of Ath. the
word is not omitted, but if Ath“, presumably examined by Soden, really
omit, we are thoroughly justified in connecting this strange omission with
Alexandria.
But in another place Hort writes as follows:
“The perpetuation of the purer text may in great measure be
laid to the credit of the watchful scholars of Alexandria ; its
best representatives among the versions are the Egyptian,
and especially that of Lower Egypt; and the quotations
which follow it are most abundant in Clement, Origen
(Dionysius, Peter), Didymus and the younger Cyril, aLL
ALEXANDRIANS.” Hort, vol. i. p. 549.
As to whether the Alexandrian School preserved the true text, or
modified it by attempted improvement, is what we are to inquire into.
Hort’s system involves dragging in readings of B whenever support
can be found from another ms. Since Hort’s day his true system thus
demands and compels the acceptance of further “‘ monstra ” exhibited by
B owing to support forthcoming since from other mss or versions (such
as 604 892 Paris” syr sin). I make free to prophecy that other
documents so far unknown will add to this list a further crop of
vicious survivals which might give us eventually all of B’s misreadings.
The system is thus demonstrated to be unscientific in the extreme,
notwithstanding the praise so fulsomely lavished on it by a certain
school.
I propose to sketch the matter in St. Matthew. In St. Luke I
will go into the matter a little more thoroughly in some respects.
And in St. Mark I will add a section on the differing recensions visible
in that Gospel. The treatise might run to undue length if all four
Gospels were handled quite exhaustively. In St. John I have been
obliged to go into great detail owing to the character of the Gospel and
its pleonastic expressions leading to textual difficulties.
CHAPTER II.
B in St. MattHew’s GOSPEL,
Example of editing by B.
Matt. v. 87. ‘‘ Let your word be yea yea, nay nay.” For ecto B alone
with Σ min* Hus substitutes eotas. Hort actually dignifies this
with a place in his margin. Now if B be right, δὲ and every
other ms and Father are wrong and the copies in their hands
most curiously mutilated.
For Justin Martyr, Clement and Clem>™ several times, Tertullian,
Cyprian and Iren. all witness to ἔστω, while John Damascene confirms it
absolutely, for quoting the same saying from St. James v. 12, where
the rare form ἤτω obtains (and is constant in all Mss), he quotes it
as ἔστω.
(Clem as a matter of fact seems to be on both sides and both in
Strom. This is not indicated by Tisch.)
Examples of Solecisms or practical Solecisms of B.
v. 11. evexa Be
vi. 18. >vnorevew τοις avOpwros Ἐ (1) only
21. -- καὶ B and one boh codex
88. > την δικαίοσυνην καὶ τὴν βασίλειαν avtov = BB
ibid. χρητε (pro χρηζετε) Bret
xii. 20. No one seems to have emphasised ληνὸν by B (for Auvoy, flax).
I do not think this is an itacism because & and vg® check us.
Anvos OF Aavos Means wool (“smoking wool”), but also in a
sense wood (wooden winepress, trough, coffin, etc.), hence
probably the lignwm of k, which the very old Vulgate text of
vg® confirms. B and & draw together elsewhere, but I have
not seen notice taken of it here. Lignum is not necessarily
therefore an error for Linum. Indeed in an ancient
Graeco-latin B may have seen lignum, since k has pre-
served it.
Sah boh imply a wick of flax, but aeth suggests the woody
fibre of flax.
82. οὐκ αφεθησεταῖι (pro αφεθησεται primo loco) B*
B IN 851. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 15
Matt.
ibid. ov μη αφεθὴη (pro οὐκ apeOnoetas sec loco) B
38. -- και φαρισαιων B min’? against all others
48 fin. — μου (post οἱ ἀδελφοὶ) B@ vid cum Hv Ebion*irh
Rill. 4. καὶ ἔλθοντα Ta πετείνα κατεῴφαγεν B fam 18 only vid (and
not from a parallel) but cf. von Soden
. τῆς γῆς (pro yns) B* (De novo B™! rns yns Marc iv. δ)
. εκαυματωθήη BB (reli et & εκαυματισθη et D εκαυματισθησαν)
. τα Kat δικαιοι B@
. EAaAncey (pro παρεθηκεν) B* vid et k [Negl. Soden]
. ππ δια Tovto Be {Habet Marc vi. 14]
. eres (pro ott) Ἐ δ᾽ cum 604; ewes) XN (sah expresses this
curiously) ΟἿ. xxi. 46 which B was considering.
19. κέλευσατε (pro κελευσας) B* Sod¥4#
36. παρεκάλουν ( -- αυτον) B 892 Orig 1/2 Chr
xv. 11. epxyopevoy (pro εισερχομενον) Bs!
15. avtw εἰπεν (pro εὐπεν avt@) Β pers
17. εἰσερχόμενον (pro εἰσπορευομενο)ὺ ΒΒ Orig 1/2. Add Sod™°
82, --ηδὴ B 106 801 ὦ vg" (cf syr copt aeth)
xvi, 4. ates (pro ζητει) Be" (cum persit arab; cf. syr
ancipitem curam linguae)
14. οἱ δε (pro αλλοι δε) B* et Eus (Chr)
17. -τ- τι Β5),͵ Add ϑοα939 teste Sod, sed contraed.
21. Secxvuvar (pro Secxvuev) Bs! cum Orig
22. Aeyes avTw ἐπιτιμωὼν Be (pro npEato eritipav avtw λεγων)
and W-H marg
Xvi. 25. azo τινος ( p70 aro τινων) B 288 sol. Cyr 2/4. Add Soda
XVili. 9. cxavdare. (pro σκανδαλιζε) B*'. Correctors have not
changed. It is accented cxavdanrel.
28. —exewos B 245 pers sol (arm*" contra codd)
80. > avtov ot συνδουλοι B! et copt
xix. 22. ypnuata (pro xrnuata) ΒΝ (Chr) Is this “simple” and
‘“‘inartificial”? Hort says “no,” for he rejects it from his text and margin.
Cf Liddell and Scott swb χρῆμα: ‘The interchange of χρῆμα and
κτῆμα is frequent, yet the same distinction holds as between χράομαι and
κτάομαι, so that κτῆμα is strictly a possession, χρῆμα what one wants
or uses.”
In other words ‘“‘money” to B or the scribe of B was more
familiar (χρήματ᾽ ἀνήρ “money makes the man,” Pindar) than landed
possessions. B*"* was a city man, a town man, as is seen all through
his attitude.
St. Mark differentiates between κτήματα and ypnuara in x. 22/23 of
the parallel.t
xiv.
bo ke
aD RAS co
{ See further remarks as to this in section on Patristic quotations and Clement
of Alexandria.
16
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
St. Luke (= Mark x. 23) uses χρηματα, having in the previous verse
said merely nv yap πλουσιος σφοῦρα. In Mark x. 22 it is D which sub-
stitutes ypnuata for κτηματα.
In this connection consider next (out of the regular order) :
Matt.
xxv. 27. τὰ ἀργυρια μου (for το apyupiov μο)ὺ N*BW 604 only; “my
monies” for ‘‘my money” although referring only to the
one talent as Tisch points out. All the other Greeks,
sympathising cursives, Latins, boh and sah have the
singular. One solitary sah ms No. 8, by the change of
tt to x, gives the plural with NB. I think these two places
looked at together are very instructive.t
. “πεῖς Oavarov vel θανατω B aeth
. κατακυριευσουσιν. B 124 al. perpauc (contra rell et verss)
. εὐναὶ ὑμων TpwTOS B alone among many variations,
apparently the nearest to copt.
. ov peers (for penne) BLM only, being a strengthened
negative but against all the rest and Orig>* Meth and even
Peter of Alexandria.
. After varying the order of vv. 29/30 B with only a very few
cursives and sah boh etc., remains alone at verse 31 with
ὁ vatepos, for Evan 4 has o Sevrepos, and D with the other
few ο exyaros. Hort places o verepos in his text.
xxii. 39.t ὁμοίως (pro ομοια) B* vid ἡ The one change hangs on
abid.
ΧΧΊΙΙ.
xxiv.
ΧΧΥ.
XXVI.
27.
37.
- αὐτὴ B“ vid the other.
ομοιαζετε (pro trapopoatere) B1 [non fam]
— εαὐτης B 604 sols (bere Clem 1/3 Orig 2/6 Hus 4/5)
. εκ (proamo) B 4 Soden% #3448 (syr) Cf Marc xiii. 1
. πιστεύετε B 262 Orig?44 (¢f Mare xiii. 21)
. γαμίσκοντες Bet Sod
. eyeveto ( pro ‘yeyover) B (ef xxiv. 21 eyevero BD 604)
. πίστος ἧς (pro ns micros) Bhr (Iren™) syr
. —Tov ἀδέλφων μου Ba ΤᾺ. «τοῦ arm ? Clem 4/5 lib Ath
. —ove pr. (ante εδωκατε) B* et vg™ soli
και (ante εδυψησα) BL aeth syr pesh diatess (contra
rell omn et copt)
. KGL ἀποκτείνουσιν B min‘ r, vg" [non al.]
. πλεγων B σι soli vid
. μετ avTov (pro peta inoov) 5) υἱὰ cum Hil
. Suvopas B
. οἰκοδομησαι (— autor) B 1-209 [non 116] 69 [non fam]
Orig 2/4. Sod (Origen gives three readings here.)
+ Cf Hawkins’ ‘Hore Syn.’ p.4. Plural never used in the LKX, where the singular
ocours over 850 times. Soden adds © for the plural.
1 Male Horner ομοια.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 17
B* ( σι 4 7. aur gat vg®, corbam ad hr) aeth
B@ (Ὁ roca)
. κορβαν
. oca (pro ποσα)
. tov βαραββαν B 1 Sod" Orig soli vid [non copt]
. τὸν BapaBBav NBL 1 33 122 892 (sah boh xe Kappakac
ef syr) If improvised in ver 17, probably also here)
24. κατεναντι (pro atrevavti) BD soli vid et W-H [non al. Sod]
. περίεθηκαν B 131? for eOnxav of KNWAII syr bok latt longe
plur and ereOnxav δὲ unc?! min?! ἃ h vg? Eus (sah)
This is a clear improvisation by B, and would equate such a thing
as περιέλειχον of 157 at Luke xvi. 21, except that it comes from
Mark xv. 17 “καὶ περιτιθεασιν avtw πλεξαντες axavd. ated.”
88. εἰς Tov τόπον τον B'! (pro es τοπον) cf. sah boh et Luc xxiii. 33.
See under “ Harmonies.”
B 218 soli laté”™ Hus 1/2 Juvenc.
W-H™s
This seems to be a delicate choice of the dative after πεποίθεν.
The acc. or dative can accompany πείθω according to its various shades
of meaning. Here apparently “ He was fully persuaded of and conformed
to God.”
43. emt τω θεω (pro emt Tov θεον)
B and Latin Sympathy.
It is quite impossible to divorce B from Latin affiliations. In the
detail of this matter will be found much food for reflection in this Gospel
and in the others.
These lists are compiled to assist in differentiating between a possible
common base of the Greek and Latin witnesses and a real appropriation
by B of Latinisms or Latin readings. The full force of the matter is felt
when we see where W goes with B and where it does not.
Matt.
i, 22,
. ews ετεκεν (PTO ews ou ετεκεν)
. ehavn (pro φαινεται)
κυρίου (-- τοῦ NBCDW2ZA (observe both D and A are present)
B"'[W-H] (ef Lue xii. 59)
B 372 and laté
vi. 10. καὶ ἐπὶ yns (— της) NBWZA Clem Origsie
18. > νηστενων tors avOpmrrois B (ὦ) sola
ix. 28. > rovto δυναμαιῖ ποιησαι Big vg™
x. 4. Kavavatos (pro xavavirns) BCD (χαν.) L min pauc copt it vg et ὃ
16. εἰς To pecov (pro ev Tw μεσω) λυκων B cum ff, k τοῦ Lucif.
23. Ἰσραὴλ (— του) BD [ W-H] latt (ef Marc xv. 32)
xu. 1, 12. σαββατοις (pro σαββασιν) B™ e¢ vett sabbatis
xii, 4. ὃ (pro ods) BDW 18 22124 ὃ dk q aur vg" syr
ΧΙ. 5. e€averethav (pro εξανετειλε) B*! Cf lattexortasunt. See
. EMETED ELS
. αἰῶνος (-- τοῦ NBD fam 18 88 Orig 1/2 latt (contra sah et boh
‘“‘ Change of Number.”
B* (pro erecev ert) sed B ipse vid ere substiturt
diserte τουτου του αἰωνος)
σ
18
Matt. |
[ xiii.
xiv.
XV.
Xvi.
xiii,
40.
46
9.
29.
. avaBavtwv (pro εμβαντων) NBDT° 892 (/att: ascendentibus)
81.
37.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
The above is followed suspiciously closely by κατακαίεται
NB (Ὁ —ovra ) 1 [non 118-209] Cyr and latt ‘‘ comburuntur,”’
“exuruntur” (contra rell Gr). The Coptic word, one chosen
out of many, cepoKg,oe (hence “‘sirocco”) may also
intimate κατακαίεται rather than xaceras. W with the rest
καιεται.
A very curious case occurs here, where NB and all agree in
menpaxev against the aorist of D alone ἐπωλησεν]
λυπηθεὶς (pro ελυπηθὴὴ BD 1 fam 18 604. Some Latins
contristatus without est (against the other Greeks and the
important witnesses ὁ f k 4" copt arm syr). This λυπηθεις
looks strangely like the Latin contristatus (—est), for the
copula Se wanting in BD is found in the Latins ὁ f k q* (copt
syr), which have contristatus est, showing that est did not slip
in there by mistake.
twavyny (—Tov) only BN*ZO 1 as lat. Otherwise sah boh
“he took off the head of John.”
πετρος (—6) NBD [non minn] W-H
κωφους axovovTas (pro κωφ. χλαλουντας) ΒΦ 59 115 288 and
e “ surdos audientes”’ (while ὦ using surdos yet has loquentes,
as also k). All the rest and Jatt have λαλουντας. I class this
here because of the acceptance by ὦ ὁ k of surdos for mutos.
xopos is used in N.T. both for dumb and deaf (vide our Eng.
transl.). Boh turns the difficulty by beginning mutos
loquentes, continuing et clodvs ambulantes et caecos videntes,
and closing with the addition of surdos audientes, while a
cuts out nearly the whole verse.
> ro περίσσευον των Kr. npav. Latin order, supported only by
BD 1 33 892 against the Greeks and other versions.
ὠφθὴ (pro ὠφθησαν) [μωυσὴς και nretas following] corres-
ponds to latt mult “ paruit.”
The polyglot character of NB is shown in this same verse
where they change the order μετ avrov συλλάλουντες (cum 60
loquentes) to συνλαλ. μετ αὐτου with W 1 ffi2 q sah boh aeth
and syrr Cyr. So again xvii. 7 προσηλθεν o inoovs καὶ
ἀψαμενος NBD fam 13 604 id?! vg syrr against προσέλθων ...
nyrarto of the rest.
. συστρεφομενων Se avtav (pro avaotped. δε αντων) NB 1 892.
Cf laf! conversantibus; etre....ce ff; et Orig (“ neutral ”’)
στρεφομενων δε αὐτων.
. φαρισαιοι {--οὦὗ BCLMWAII® αἱ. ραιιο boh Dam.
. oxo (pro exw) BD Sod™ latt Orig 1/2 (contra SLi κκληρονομησω)
. eyes (pro epyn) B Sod” fam 18 only of Greeks with all Latins.
. ποτ Β plur and latt (but against NCLMZ copt syr)
B IN §T. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 19
Matt.
xx. 20. am αὐτου (pro παρ avtov) BD 604 W-H. Cf latt sah
33. > οὐ οφθαλμοι μων NBDLZ 88 892 Sod5*""'4 latt
xxi. 28. > δυο rexva Bi 142 299 Sod" lattom
xxii. 4. ητοιμακα NBC*DL 1 22 33 604 892"; against ἡτοίμασα of the
rest, strengthened by Orig Cyr Chr Dam. Hort uses ητοιμακα
here without a sign in the margin. This is not Origen.
5. ere τὴν ἐμπορίαν (pro εἰς τὴν eum.) NBCDT"3®@ fam 18 33
125* 157 [non 28] 604 Orig and Lar.
30. —rov θεν BD fam1 [non fam 13] 604abcdef frzhqr
τσ" syr cu sin sah arm Orig*® W-H, but cf Marc xii. 25
Note that W has τον @eov with the rest and does not go
with D here.
xxiv. 8. -- τῆς (ante συντελειας) NBCLM Sod fam 1 33 157 892 Cyrtier
88. +exeuvass BD Sod™ latt and sah
xxv. 16. exepdycev (pro εποιησεν), and --τάλαντα fin by BCDL, and
BL respectively, shows very strong Latin affiliation, both
being against N and the mass.
29. του Se μὴ eyovtos (pro amo δὲ του μὴ exovtos) NBD 1-209
[non 118] 33 124 [non fam] = Lat.
41. κατηραμενοι (—or) NBLT" 33 Sod* boh Cyr 1/2 (contra
rell et Patr Gr permultos) et Orig"®,
xxvi. 45. καθευδετε λούπον (pro καθ, To Novrov) BCLW 273 348 τοῖς
ΡΣ 892 Sod+ seems to equate 757 and the Latin jam [see
Liddell and Scott]. Syr with sah and aeth = “ergo.”
53. πλείω (pro πλειους) S*BD W-H [non minn]latt (against Origen)
“Xvi, 43. ἐπὶ Tw θεω (pro ere tov θεν) B 218 soli latt?! et W-H mg.
49. evra B fam 13 (and εἰπὸν D 69) W-H tat=abed ff,
g2q but not the others and no vulgates. All other Greeks
oppose with edeyov.
xxvili. 14. ὑπὸ του nyeuovos (pro emt Tov ny.) BD 59892 only with W-H
marg. Cf lat “a praeside.”
15. apyupia (—Ta) N*BYW Sod! et W-H tat. Cf lat
“ pecunia.”
ibid. onpepov +nuepas BDL and Latin against N and the rest.
These three places coming so close together after a long while seem
particularly interesting and noteworthy. Origen opposes B definitely in
the last place and probably at xxviii. 14, certainly once out of twice there.
This is again followed by:
xXVvill. 17. προσεκυνησαν (—avtw) NBD 88 only and lait (except 4) vg Hus
Chr against all other Greeks +avtw with g syr and Coptic.
Observe now from xxviii. 19 where B adds ovy with AII, and where
D adds νυν (and some Latins both οὖν and νυν), that this Latin text
favoured by B was not of the purest most neutral stock, for δὲ and all
other Greeks add nothing, having πορευθέντες only with EVERY GREEK AND
Latin FarHer from Irenaeus to Amphilochius. And the same remark
c 2
20 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
applies to the βαπτισαντες of BD (soli; Soden adds none) laté in this
verse against βαπτίζοντες of all the rest, and the same array of Fathers.
I am sorry to say that Hort swallows ovy without marginal comment, and
ventures to put βαπτίσαντες in his margin.
As to B and Coptic sympathy.
[Again here observe W, Where W joins is for the Egyptian method
of the possessive before the noun (vii. 24, 26) and for wa instead of omas
(viii. 84), which 9,1ma would appear in the bohairic column or at any
rate be familiar to the ear of an Alexandrian].
This feature has been recognised to some extent, but many details
have been overlooked which make for definite Coptic influence upon
the parents of B, rather than for mere common basic sympathy with
a Greek text underlying the Coptics.
Matt.
1. 5. Boes NB Ozyr? k sah boh W-H
ii, 21, εἰσηλθεν (pro ηλθε)ὺ NBC 157 278 soli et sah (aqRuoK
€9,pat) boh (Δ ει eHorert)
ili, 2. -- καὶ (ante λεγων) NB sah boh aeth σὰ q W-H Sod.
vii. 17. Amid vastly differing orders (see under NB in Part II for
details) B alone with vg™@ gives us Coptic order καρποὺς
move. κάλους, bringing xadovs last. Tischendorf does not
notice this and Horner for some extraordinary reason is
here absolutely silent. Yet Hort places this grandly in his
margin. If anyone will take the trouble (it takes a good
half hour) to run through the differing orders, he will rise
from his examination convinced that B here does not
alone retain a “neutral” order, but has ‘‘ accommodated ”’
at some time in his career. Soden adds no support for B.
24, avrov την οἰκιαν NBCWZ 1 33 892 Orig sah boh (ex more
copt) contra rell omn et latt τὴν οἰκιαᾳν αὐτου. [Anyone
who will compare what δὲ does elsewhere in this chapter
(see Part II. under δὲ and B) will bear me out that he sat
there playing with the versions, ringing changes in syr, lat
and copt, as well as improvising himself, as he does in the
verse previous to this, adding πολλα to δαιμονιαΐ.
26. αὐτου τὴν οἰκαν NBWZ 1 604 892 Sod*4 sah boh (more
copt). Contra rell et Orig (hoc loco) !
Vili. 8. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ N*B 88 372 sah [non boh] W-H
ἀπεκρίθη. .καὶ εἶπεν 807 et kk Ἷ
καὶ αποκριθεις N> C et rell et latt
+ This is rather a pretty picture in an unimportant place of my contention as
to ἢ (Tisch does not refer to it, so I wish to call attention to it).
B IN 57. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 21
Matt.
vii. 18. οχλον B sah soli (e¢ W-H tzxt)
oxrous δὲ bok soli (τους οχλους boh)
The rest πολὺν οχλον, oyAov πολὺν (Ὁ), πολλοὺς οχλοὺς OY ayAoUS
πολλους.
A curious place occurs at Ψ111. 27 jin where NBW 1 88 892 Hus Chr
W-H make the order avtw umaxovovew against viraxovovew αὐτω of all
others, including coptic and the versions; & alone varies, with obaudientes}
tantum, and Hil 1/2 obedisse. In Luke the order of all is also καὶ
utaxovovew avtw, but B omits there with 604. Why this change of order
in Matthew against coptic, latin and syriac? d is available again here
for the first time and reads obawdiunt et with the mass. Sod adds °° to
XBW.
Matt.
vill. 84, eva (pro ors) BW alone and boh pina (sah xeKkac)
ix. 9. μαθθαιον NB*D sah [non boh], so at x. 3 again
12 init. o Se (-- ιησους) NBD35 248 892 d sah [non boh] aeth¥t.
syr sin
82. κωῴφον (—avOpwmov) SB 71 892 sah boh (Nowe RO) aeth syr
W-H contra rell omn.
x. 32. ev τοὺς οὐρανοῖς (pro ev ovp.) BCKYV al. sah boh Cyr
sed Orig 1/4
99: ὡς 45 " iis abe BS BVX al. sah boh Cyr sed
Orig 1/8
xi. 16. ev ταῖς ayopats (pro ev ayop.) δὲ ΒΖ (1) 124 157 892 al.
W-H Sod. sah boh contra rell et Clem (sed ev tn ayopa
D syr sah™™S, in foro @ latt aeth goth)
XH. 13, cov την yetpa (pro τὴν χείρα cov) NBL min pauc and 892 is
the coptic manner. See above, and beyond for such preference
under ‘‘ Genitive before the Noun in Luke.”
17. wa (pro orws) NBCDI1 33 Orig Eus boh (see above, viii. 34)
22. See under ‘“‘ Change of Voice.”’
31. αφεθησεται υμὲν τοῖς avbpwros B 1 [non 118-209] sah
syrriet Ath [non boh latt]
ΧΙ, 28. οὐ δὲ (-- δουλο Β 167 gz h bok sah [non aeth rell] W-H tat
This seems to be a nicety of “pairs.” 0 de edn autos. .o δε Aeyovow
uvtw. Very pretty but not legitimate. So both coptics ‘‘ But he, said
he to them. .but they, said they to him.”’ It is ridiculous to suppose that
all others added this δουλοι. Besides Manich®?» opposes B and has it.
Matt.
xiv. 8. +rore B cum fam 13 Sod” et txt, et sah diserte (ev τουτω
Tw Katpw); et of k “cum detinuisset.”
{ This may be primitive.
} Observe the different character of support to B in these three places while sah
bok are constant.
22
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
This is clear B and sak sympathy and nothing else. Boh does
not join nor δὲ nor D nor W nor others.
Matt.
xvi. 21.
xvii..8.
14.
IC XC (pro o incous) N*B* Sod” sah 2/3 bohom practer duo goainst
the rest, and they themselves corrected,f and against the other
versions. (Dominus Jesus aeth, as often = merely ‘‘ Jesus.’’)
N 892 Orig Tren“ plane om. W-H follow NB.
ἵν avrov μονον & iin
Lies a μονοῖ, Ὁ B bOLRoa™ pro tov ἑήσουν μονον. This is
rendered perfectly clear from the coptics, where αὐτὸς is tacked
on to the word for μονοςς The Latins do not do it, so we
may clearly refer this as to both δὲ and B to Coptic I think
or possibly Syriac.t Following so close on xvi. 21 it is
instructive.
ἔλθοντων (—avtwv) NBZ 1124 245 Sod" sah
Rvili. 1 init. ev exewn δὲ BM Sod” and only sah 3/6 boho™
11 vers om. NBL* 1* [non fam] 13 [non fam] 33 892* e ff, sah
14.
16.
27.
81.
xix. 16.
21.
29.
bid.
boh”! syr hier sin Orig (contra rell et syrr reli latt rell aeth 3).
D has the verse and also W very specially. Observe the
spacing fo 65 in W. (Sod™° also omits.)
πατρὸς μου (pro πᾶτρος vuwv) BFHIT αἱ. sah boh, only rz of
Latins, arm aeth, syr sin (only of syr) and Orig®s
Matter of order: παράλαβε (ert) eva ἡ Sv0 peta co. B ff,
boh sah only [non al. Sod}
rou δουλου (~exetvov) B Sod 1 124 only with sah 4/7. It may
be useful to mention the sah mss as they are very definite here.
They are 111112114 f'. (avrov syr cu sin, et aliter pers).
>avtov οἱ cvvdovro. δ᾽ cum sah boh
oxo (pro exw vel κληρονομήσω) BD Sod™ Orig 1/2. Coptic
has no verb for ey#, and although cy probably approxi-
mates the Latin here, it is interesting to see that sah has erext
“take” as against boh NTaepkAnponogsin “inherit”
transliterating the Greek of δὲτ, and some.
τοις πτωχοῖς (pro wrwyos) BD only with sah boh against
all the rest and against Clem Orig** with a host of Fathers. .
Tov ἐμοῦ ovopatos (pro τοῦ ονοματος pov) SB Sod οὶ
124 [non fam] § sah boh et W-H tat.
πολλαπλασίονα (pro εκατονταπλασ) Bl: Sod fam ¢° sah syr
hier Orig? soli W-H tat [non δὲ reil)
ἡ So it is not likely that either of the uss N or B influenced boh or sah, seeimg that
the corrections stared the copts in the face. Obs. a place like xxvii. 4 where ἀθωον is
used by NB* and the mass, while δικαίον is transliterated by sah.
Τ᾽ Syr uses the same expression xvii. 19; not so coptic.
§ Therefore, as I supposed, the Matthaean recension of 124 was revised in Egypt.
B IN ST, MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 23
Matt.
xx. 9. edMovtes δὲ Bet W-H tat cum sah boh*®: (γς syr cu non sin).
16. -- πολλοὶ yap εἰσι KANTOL odvyot Se εκλεκτοι. NBLZ 36 892
sah boh?! (aeth alig, non Walton) against all the rest and
lattio™ = syr™™ arm Orig’ hoc loco (Barn Hom™™ Clem).
This is supposed to be dragged in by the mass from xxii. 14,
but Orig quotes twice at xx. 16, and thrice at xxii. 14. It
seems a clear ‘“ Egyptian’? removal at xx. 16, for neither
D nor W nor 6 nor 72 nor ff countenance the removal here and
syr lat are a unit for the clause.
34. Savrev τῶν oupatoy B™ et copt (contra Orig)
xxi. 11. >0 προφητῆς unoous NBD 157 sah boh arm Orig 1/3 Eus
against all the rest and latt syrr aeth Orig 2/8
This Origenistic division is most illuminating in all these places,
leaving NBD alone with Egypt for a base. (Cf BD supra xix. 21).
It is immediately followed by
xxi. 12, εἰς το tepov (-- τοῦ θεοῦ) NBL 18 [non fam] 88 73 604 892 ὃ,
sah boh again, with arm aeth Orig 2/5 Meth Chr Hil, but seems
to be a clear harmonistic omission, for tov θεοῦ is absent from
Mark (xi. 15) and Luke (xix. 45). (Sod adds %° alia.)
Note how closely NB stick to copt here, with Origen again ἃ poor
wavering witness.
In such cases Tischendorf (as Turner has pointed out in a general
way) abandoned his favourite δὲ with great judgment and placed tov θεὸν
in his text, while poor Hort, abject slave to his standard, can only find
room for του θεου in his margin. The Revisers restore it to their text (but
in Souter’s note he says “13 &c. 88 700,” implying the family 18,
whereas the other members do not support 18).
As to xxi. 13, I have to refer to another place under “ Historic
Present.” I have followed Dr. Schmiedel’s advice in making such
subdivisions, but it has much inconvenience for the running argument.
I state it once for all here.t Observe then that zrosevre of NBL Sod 124
892 is the reading of boh (against sah). Therefore in what precedes here
as to Coptic, boh is just as old as sah.
xxi. 15. Ἔτους (ante xpafovras) NBDILN (sah) boh arm syr against
the rest and the usual cursives and Orig Meth. Boh is very
definite here. Tisch. omits to add the versions.
Again Hort follows what is really a version tradition here against
Origen and Methodius, L and the rest.
xxi. 29/31 vers invert. B pauc. cum sah boh ete.
KX. 37. ο be egy avtw NBL 33 sah boh Orig (against D latt εφη
αὐτω moous, and o δε inoous εφη αντω of most, and o δὲ enaous
εὐπεν avtw of some)
+ A more elaborate subdivision will be found elsewhere including “ Form,” which
sometimes finds a place under the unique readings of B.
24 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
May
tt.
Exil. 39 init. δευτερα (—Se) N*B 157 sah™ boh°™ W-H. There seems
no other attestation. (Sod adds *" [ὃ or e?] 333). Other sah
and boh codd have ae, but some boh “τε. Latins have autem,
while syrr diatess and Cypr have καὶ Sevrepa. Mark xii. 31 =
“Sevrepa αὐτὴ," hence this seems Marcan influence, for
Luke x. 27 continues simply “ «as tov πλησίον.
Kxilil. 9. υμων o πατήρ NBUD 33 892 Sod? 3" 225 Hyst 48 al’ Nyss
et sah boh W-H et Sod tat (contra rell gr et syr lat o matnp υμων)
38. —epnuos BL ff, sah boh syr sin. I place this here as it
does not seem basic at all but Egyptian. Orig who (doubt-
fully) supports once with Cyr 2/3 is contradicted by Orig sve
EusP? ag well as Clem and Cypr and all other Greeks and
Latins. 2 appears here owing to its Egyptian influences. I
do not place this under “ Harmonistic omissions,” although at
St. Luke xiii. 35 most authorities omit, for there a good many
add. It probably belongs in St. Matthew and not in St. Luke.
BL ff, sah boh syr sin are only complicating the synoptic pro-
blem here once more. Soden has no new witness for omission.
Diatess ὃ 41 is quoting from Matthew and has ἐρημος.
W-Hort here in Matt. exclude epnwos from the text but have it in the
margin. Souter has it in his text but puts a footnote “ om. ἔρημος. He
gives the evidence of BL, adding a black letter %(% 5), The ff, is so
small one can hardly see it, and black letter IL makes one think it has
large Latin support, whereas ff; here is representing Egypt, against e and
all the rest and all vulgates.
xxiv. 81, 37, 38, 39 taken together have some significance.
40. > ecovrar δυο ἀξ" ΒΒ p** 892 hr 7r, vg'®¥ and sah, against
boh and the rest. (For the conjunction ἢ r 7, see under Lists
for δὲ and Β αὖ χχῖν, 11 as well as here. This seems conclusive
as to ἢ for Irish origin. No other Old Latins join them; and
observe the full array of ah nr rz at xxvi. 56). Add Soden*
48. > μου ο κυρις NBCDIL 33157 209? 409 604 892 Sod. perpane.
Ephr? sah boh
ibid. χρονιξει (—cAGev) NB 6 88 604 892 sah boh Ephr Irenit
(against all the rest and against all Latins but Iren™t which
shows this is Iren** pure)
xxv. 1. vravrnow (pro απαντὸ NBCZ 1 [non fam] 892 (Meth 1/2)
[male Soden de 157] Cf eg,pert bor
This in connection with xxv. 6 fin εξερχεσθε εἰς απαντησιν
(-- αὐτοῦ) by NB 604 alone + Cyr Meth shows such a nice appre-
ciation of the difference between ὑπάντησιν αὐτου and avavrnow without
αὐτου that it should be carefully noted (Z is wanting in verse 6), because
both coptics and all others and all Latin have avrov in verse
6 fin.
Cf in this connection xxvi. 42 παρελθειν (—am εμου).
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL.
Note further that at
Matt.
vili. 28.
84.
xxvill. 9.
xvii. 12.
xxii. 10.
x. 25.
xvi. 16.
25
υπηντησαν avtw is used by all on this the first occurrence of
the expression.
εἰς υπαντησιν του ιησου & 33
εἰς υὑπαντησιν TW ἴήησον Bi Soa”
εἰς συναντησιν τουίησου Ο 157 892 ys Cyr | εἰς απαντησιν
εἰς συναντησιν TW τησου Rell omn
τω t. Sod? 459
νπηντησεν αὐταῖς is used again by N*BCIIZ3 fam 1 fam 18
(partim) 604 892 min Orig Cyr against ἀπήντησεν αὖτ. of the
rest
. ὑπήντησεν αὐτῶ NBCDGLA 1 fam 18 28 al” Dam against
απηντησεν of ATI unc® al. pt
. QTAVTHTEL ὑμῖν unchanged by all (except υπ. 28 Sod
9)
_ πὙυπηντησεν (—avto) NBEWE 1 88 157 604 αἴ (rell νπηντησεν
+auto practer Τ' al. pauc arnvt.)
Paris®’ 892 Sod”
aravtyoa To peta = =LWYATI unc’ al. pl Bas
. συνηντησεν AVTW All (except Ὁ συνέλθειν R συνηντησαν)
. νπαντησαι τῶ wera ΔΑΒΌΗΧΔῚ 88 fam 18 (partim) 157
υπηντησαν αὐτω NN Sod fam 1 fam 18 [non 124] 157
[male Sod] 892 al” Bas Dam
umrnvtncav (-- αὐτῷ) Li et Sod txt
ἀπηντησαν αὐτῶ AWXTAATL une? al. pl et B-V
απηντησαν (—avtw) Bet W-H txt
[σπου noav Ὁ de (latt)|
υπαντήσει υμιν CXL al. pauc 892 Sods
απαντήσει vv Ὁ 124 (ἀπ.) al. pauc. Orig
συναντήσει υμὲν NABPRWIAATI une® al. pl
. UTNVTNTAY avT@ NBCDKLW 1 al” et 892
ἀπήντησαν αὐτῷ ATAATI wne® al. pl Orig Cyr Chr
. ὑπήντησεν αὐτῶ by all (except ϑοῦ
. vITNVTnTEey avTw by all (except one)
. εἰς ὑπάντησιν αὐτὼ NBEFHMQSWTAA al. pl
εἰς arravtnow avto AKUII al® Orig’® (avtov Sod)
εἰς συναντησιν αὐτὼ LX 157 al. paue
εἰς συναντησιν αὐτου DG al®
,. UINVTNTEV AUTO by all (υπηντησαν ἢ ¢ ὦ
cuvaytnoas avtw by all (συναντησαντα avtw two)
νπαντησαι ἡμῖν NBCE min® Orig (συναπανγ. two)
ἀπαντησαι ἡμῖν ADHLP al. pl Eustath Chr
26 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Acts
xx. 22. συναντηήσοντα wot NBLP al. pl Ath Chr (BB enor)
συναντησαντα pow ADEA αἱ.
συμβησομενα por Ο min®
XXVvili. 15. εἰς υπαντησιν vuw = N* sic (ημιν Sod”
εἰς υπαντησιν nuov 40
el; ἀπάντησιν nuw ABHULPS* ete Chr Thpyl 1/2
εἰς ἀπαντησιν ἡμων I min® Thpyl 1/2
1 Thess.
iv. 17. εἰς υπαντησιν τω χριστὼ εἰς acpa = D* E* FG
εἰς υπαντησιν Tw κυριω εἰς aEepa D
εἰς συναντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς acpa = piph
εἰς ἀπαντησιν τον κυρίου εἰς αεβα ὃὲβ rell Orig’® Hipp Dial
Hus”® Bas al.
Heb.
vii. 1. συναντησας, Heb vii. 10 συνηντησεν by all
Anyone who will have the patience to go through this list will see
the drift at once. Until the list is drawn up we are at sea. Now it
appears that vravraw is purely Johannine, that St. Luke rather favours
συνανταω (as shown by Acts x. 25, xx. 22; Luke ix. 37, xxii. 10),
but also used uravyr. or atravr. elsewhere, where the mss try to confuse
us. St. Mark uses azavraw xiv. 18, and the mss are divided as to
aravr. or uravr. at v. 2. St. Matthew uses ὑπαντησαν in viii. 28,
where all are agreed, and doubtless συναντησιν at viii. 34, which NB wish
to change to ὑπ. He seems afterwards to employ azavt. but the Mss
wish to harmonise his passages (or prefer the Johannine expression)
and so confuse us at xxv. 1 and xxviii. 9. St. Matthew therefore uses
all three expressions interchangeably and this has caused the trouble.
I have no hesitation, after making up this list, of charging wilful change
by NB at Matthew viii. 34, xxv. 1, Xxviil. 9 (probably Mark v. 2,
Luke xiv. 31) and Acts xvi. 16, where Hustatht contradicts Origen.
Certainly someone is revising. Is it Antioch or Alexandria or Caesarea ?
Well, observe Luke xvii. 12 and Acts xxviii. 15 for the keys and there
will be found δὲ and B opposing each other! There seems to be no kind
of doubt in view of the wavering courses of L and II and C and X
that accommodation and revision went on in the different places.
Instead of ‘“‘neutrally” keeping clear of these matters, NB run to meet
difficulty and again obscure the issue for us in some of these passages,
and hence a text founded on NB obscures the problem of the varying
synoptic language (see Luke xvii. 12 B ¢ W-H soli, L ὦ Sod soli !).
Epiphanius shows us at 1 Thess. iv. 17 how carelessly he differentiated
between the language of one or of another passage.
After this digression we continue as to coptic sympathy :—
Tt Nor is Eustathius’ text of Acts any common “ Antioch” revision. He has 8
most peculiar cast alone with D in one of the few places which survive in his writings.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 27
Matt.
Xxv. ὃ. ae yap (pro at δε Z 157 ἐ{0ὶ, av ow Dd 9,5, autwes X plur)
NBCL 33 892 boh sah
6. —epyetas NBCDLZ 604 892 sah boh ἃ Meth 1/2 Cyr [contra
rell omn et syr lat]
Xxvi. 28. -- καινης (ante διαθηκη)ὺ NBLZ 88 Sod%87 boh™* [non sah,
of “ Pistis’’| Cyr, against all the rest and Origen Iren. This
hardly belongs in this list, but I do not know where to place
it. Ido not charge this as a deliberate omission, yet it looks
like one. The evidence is overwhelming for the reception of
καινῆς, which Hort excludes. The Oxford edition of 1910
also excludes, but Souter gives the evidence, actually ranking
“102” for omission. I should have thought 102 was exploded
long ago as being merely a collation of B. Gregory in his
Emendanda removed 102 everywhere. Souter adds Cypr for
omission, as Von Soden (¢ is wanting). Hitherto Cypr had
been given by Sabatier and Tisch on the other side.
45. wWou+yap BE p*" = sah syr sin Ath Ὁ
55. καθημεραν (—mpos vyas) NBA 33 604 892 sah δον syr
sin Cyrs Origi"t 1/3 against all others and against Latin.
71. ovros (-- καὶ NBD Sod™ [non 604] sah syr sin (against all else).
XXXVI. 2. πίλατω (-- ποντίω) NBLY 33 sah boh syr Orig Petr. This
is & curious omission against the serried ranks of the other
Greeks (and W and © replacing the missing Greek of D here)
and the Latins, on this the first mention of the name. The
sah boh syr connection (in the absence of the Latins) does not
mean that it is necessarily basic. It is to be seen abundantly
elsewhere that syr sin and sah hang together, not always for
the purest text. Orig with Petr confirm it as Alexandrian, but
whether ‘‘ neutral”’ or not is another question.
23. --ηγεμων NB Sod 33 69 [non fam] sah [non boh] syr arm
(syr™) ΚΗ
42. βασίλευς ἰσραηλ ἐστιν (—e) NBDL 33 892 d sah (against
boh and everything else including syr sin Hus Ps-Ath)
46. ehwer ehwes B et sah literati solt ef Mare
eho ἕλω = Net boh literatim cum 88 al. pauc vg" | xv. 84
In Mark xv. 34 both NB have λων edo, while sah repeats ἐλωεὶ
ἔλωεν and boh edau edwst, but the syr differentiates (with the Greeks) as
between Matthew and Mark. This tiny place therefore affords a con-
siderable clue. It is probable that B and sah are closer in St. Matthew
than elsewhere; in other words, sympathetic readings, although
including syr sin or others, probably derive from sah, at any rate in
t ‘‘But we have not been able to recognise as Alexandrian any readings of B in
any book of the New Testament which it contains.” Hort, vol. ii. p. 150. Hort did not
look very far. How about Athanasius here ?
28 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matthew. Similarly, as often before, δὲ runs with boh here. It is
probable that N had before him either sah snp boh, or an edition of
boh which was nearer to sah than our surviving boh uss show.
Matt.
Xxvil, 46. Xeua NBL 33 273 604 Hust 21 22 et boh (al. boh ereara
cum sah). The rest Acua or λειμα, and λαμα D
ibid. caBaxraver B™ vid cum 22? al? sah (pro caBay. rell)
51. Order: ἐσχίσθη (at’) avobev ews κατω εἰς δυὸ (hoc loco) BC*L
sah boh aeth (As syr sin omits κατω εἰς δυο and ἃ Orig Hus
omit εἰς δυο this can only come from coptic). [δὲ goes with
the rest and Latin order, placing es δυο after εσχισθη.]
58. ἀποδοθηναι (-- τὸ cwua) NBL min™ against all the rest and
the Latins and arm aeth goth syr pesh Orig**, The support
is confined to syr sin and the coptics which include αὐτὸ in
the verb, while aeth is very definite against them. "When aeth
has shown such intense sympathy with δὲ and B (being alone
with B in Matthew three times, alone with δὲ over a dozen
times) it seems fair to bring it into play in a case like this.
XXVviii. 6 fin. εκειτο (-- ὁ xuptos) NB 33 Sod ¢ sah boh arm aeth syr
sin Orig** Cyr against the rest and D d, all Latins but 6, and
syr pesh pers (Aeth “sepultus fuit,” the Latins “ positus
erat,” but 6 “‘jacebat,” and observe coptic imperfect).
The ὁ recension hangs absolutely to NB, for at xxviii. 8 6 uses
abissent (απέλθουσαι NBCL fam 13 88) for exterwnt of all other Latins
(and εξελθουσαι all other Greeks).
See again xxviii. 14 —avrov NB Sod 33 Orig? and ὁ only, against
all else, all Latins, syr copt and Cyrbe
Add to the coptic list the places under ‘‘ Change of number ” where
NB prefer the plural. In every case this has the countenance of the
coptic.
Traces of Syriac.
Matt. : . Z
xi. 23. > at ev coe yevopevat B (instead of ai yevomevar ev coe of all
other Greeks and Latins and Coptic) is found to be the order
of syr sim (against syr cu). Syr sin says “ that in you were
seen,” but gives this order. It is a curious touch, not observed
by Mrs. Lewis in her English translation of syr sin, not noted
by Horner in his notes to sah, but standing plainly in Burkitt’s
notes to syrcusin (Hing and Syriac sides) andin Merx’ translation.
I have been accused of seeing fanciful resemblances which are
merely coincidences and at first sight this might appear to be a mere
coincidence. I am glad of the opportunity to be more precise and to
show that these things are not mere coincidences and that the study of
them is an absolute necessity (quite overlooked hitherto) if we are to
make progress in tracing the text-history behind Origen.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 29
It is to be noted then that NBC 1 83 and a few cursives change
ἐμειναν to ewecvev in this same verse against fourteen uncials and the mass.
The plural number is supported by all the Latins, and sah of necessity
for that version has Sodom and Gomorra. The Greek of all is ev σοδομοις,
but the Syriacs with the diatess arab have in Sodom and a singular verb.
The bohairic has Aen conaoaxa and a plural verb. Syriac then and
NBC are in sympathy here alone, whatever we may think of the whole
situation, for ἐμεῖναν may possibly be revision here for a basic ewewev. Yet
how is it that D, all the rest, and all the Latins persist in the plural ?
The only point I wish to make at this place is, however, that as
syr and NBC are shown alone together here for εμείνεν (against the
otherwise friendly Coptic and Latin) it is clear the previous point as to
special order in the verse with sy7 sin is well taken. Horner and Tisch
are both silent as to the versions, which is 8 pity.
Matt.
xili, 86. διασαφησον (pro dpacov) NB Sod (none of the sympathis-
ing cursives| Orig and syr copt. Obs. also the use of the word by
Clem™* (Strom vi. 15: καὶ κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα
διασαφοῦντες τὰς γραφάς). [In xv. 15 Greeks all φρασον.
Copt and syr use the same word as in xiii. 36, Latins vary as in
xiii. 36]. Both W-H and Sod place διασαφησον in their texts.
xii. 22. See under “ Change of voice.” B shares (alone among Greeks
and Latins) the active voice of sy copt aeth.
31, αφεθησεται υμεν τοῖς avOpwros Β 1 Sod™ and sy sah Ath
[non boh non latt]. The other Syriacs express, as often, “to
sons of men,” which may have given rise to it. But perhaps
place this under Coptic (sah) quite definitely, since Athanasius
also witnesses. Note this as to Alexandrian readings of B.
Another peculiar case occurs soon after in sympathy with the
versions, partially, at—
xii. 36. λέγω Se ὑμῖν οτι παν ρημα apyov ὃ λαλησουσιν οἱ avOpwrot. So
XB Sod and copt syr. The common Gk text read by nearly
all is ὃ ἐὰν λαλησωσιν. NB drop cay and change the subj. to
the indicative. The Latins all say quod for o eav (except h
quodcunque) with Iven'"t and Cypr, but have the subjunctive,
so they no doubt read ὃ ἐὰν λαλησωσιν. Winer has no remarks
on this peculiar place for NB, nor has Blass, although the
latter speaks of it (p. 283) in connection with anacoluthon.
We must draw our own conclusions, and those are that the
syr and coptic versions influenced NB. There is much
difference between “which men may speak” (Lat Gr) and
“which men shall speak” (syr copt 8B). ΤῸ also omits eav
and has dAadovew with d. C has cay but writes λαλησουσιν.
Observe now that Τί and Orig are against NBD, writing o av
λαλησωσιν. (W-H follow NB without marginal comment.)
30 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt.
‘xii. 47 versom, N*BLT 126 225 238 400" Sod* (not particularly sym-
pathetic cursives otherwise) ffi k syr cu sin sah (against boh
aeth syr pesh arm and the rest of the Latins). I place this
example here because ff; & are so thoroughly syriac in base it is
probably the common base of NB sah coming out here, through
syr, rather than an “improvement” in their time. Of course
this can also be grouped under ‘Omissions from homoiote-
leuton”’ as ver 46 and ver 47 both end with λαάλησαι in most
Greeks, but in ver 46 BCZ end λαλησαι avtw, while & omits.
xiv. 24. σταδιους πόλλους απὸ τῆς γης (pro μεσὸον τῆς θαλασσης vel nv
εἰς μεσον τῆς θαλ.) B (Sod) fam 18 syr sah boh
29. καὶ nrOev (pro edMew) BC* 604 Sodtinaue syy (nt veniret lat)
xvi. 4. aster (pro ἕητε) B** (syr word serves for either expression
but actually pers’ gives this petit following other B sympathy)
ΧΥΪ. 8. avTov ἐν μονον B™ cum Sod (and NX! w avrov povov) Cf.
syr and copt and see under “ Coptic influence ”’ as well.
15. κυριε ἔλεησον μου τον υἱον pou B*"!, Cf. syr sol κυριε μου
ἔλεησον με΄ o wos μου. . . et aeth Domine miserere mei filiique
mei
xvii. 19. εξ υμων (pro υμων) NBDL al. pauc. syr latt
xxii, 9/10/11/12. See under ‘‘ Improvement.” As sah repeats the beth
in verses 9, 11 and 12 and syr does not, it is probable that
syr is the chief influence in NBL in verse 10.
xxv. 23. > πιστοςης ΒΒ hr syr soli (et hoc loco et ver 21 ἢ r syr; in
ver 21 vg®) quia super pauca fidelis ὁ (— 7s)
42. I do not know whether we ought to attribute + καὶ before
edupnoa here to syriac influence, but only BL add with syr
pesh diatess and aeth (not exhibited in Walton’s translation,
but present in the text). [W-H ἐσέ].
Add to the above an interesting place at vi. 1 where for ἐλεημοσυνὴν
of most Greeks and k, δικαίοσυνην is read by N**BD ft 7?! syr sin hier,
while Soow is given by that early corrector δὲ with bok and syr cu (Swpa
Ephr). The end of the words for “gift” and “righteousness” is the
same in Syriac. δικαιοσυνὴν and δοσιν probably grew out of a revision,
comparing with syr. But in verse 3 all have ελεημοσυνην.
[Observe the scant support NB get from the us W in all the above. }
As to ‘* Form.”
I have neglected most small matters of form, as εἰπαν, καταβατω,
μεταβα, φοβεισθε, poryevOnvas (pro poryacbat), etc.
I might call attention to Matt. xxviii. 4 where NBC*DL 33 have
eyevnOnoav and the rest ἐγένοντο with Dion? Eus, while syr sin omits the
verb altogether.
{ Harris gives 892 for δικαιοσυνὴν in verse 2.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 81
Observe Mark i. 27 εθαμβηθησαν SB and all except D who with
Orig writes εθαμβησαν, while W alone has εθαυμαζον. (In Luke iv. 36
the expression is καὶ eyevero θαμβος).
Synonyms.
Matt.
xili, 80. ayps N* et L Chr 1/3 See also
ews BD Chr 1/3 Hulog xxviii. 15 ews NDI 213 Orig 1/2
μεχρε Ὁ rell et δὰ Chr 1/8 pexpt B reli Orig 1/2
C and Ὁ alone are constant re-
This tells a tale of preferences. spectively in both places.
Cf note on περιίυπερ under Luke vi. 28.
Cf Matt. xx. 20 am αυτου (pro παρ avtov) BD 604 (latt sah).
xxi, 2, κατεναντι NBCDLZ® 892 min™ Orig”*® Hus 1/2 (parallel Mark
xt. 2 and Luke xix. 80 κατέναντι all)
arevavtt EK rell Orig®* Eus 1/2
xxvii. 24. κωτεναντι BD soli et W-H txt
απτεναντι ὃ rell et Acta Pil
61. κατεναντι D
ἀπεναντὶ NB rell
ἐπὶ wt
Mark ἢ
ΧΙ. 2. κατεναντι fere omn (parallel Matt. xxi. 2, Luke xix. 80)
xii, 41. aevavts BU 33 min® Dam
κατενωπίον (fam 18)
κατεναντέε ὃς rell et D et Orig
Xi. 8. κατεναντέί'. omn
Luke
xix. 80. xarevavte 7676 omn (parallel Mark xi. 2, Matt. xxi. 2)
I think this tells the tale, without going outside the Gospels. In
Matt. xxi. 2 xarevayrs has been borrowed from the parallels (Mark xi. 2,
Luke xix. 30) where κατέναντι stands without variation. Why should
“Antioch” vary uselessly in Matthew? It is the group NBLZ which
“accommodated.” The adhesion of D is nothing, for he prefers κατεναντι
alone at Matt. xxvii. 61 and goes with B alone at Matt. xxvii. 24, while
Eus is to be seen using both expressions in Matt. xxi. 2. I repeat:
Matt.
xxi. 2. κατεναυντί. NBCDLZ Orig 1/2 Eus 1/2 (contra rell et Orig 1/2
Hus 1/2)
xxvii. 24. xatevaytt BD soli (contra rell omn)
61. xatevaytt 10 solus (contra rell omn)
These are the only occasions where the word is used in St. Matthew.
Could there be a prettier picture that ἀπέναντι is Matthaean? In the
only place where we have the conspiracy of NBCDLZ both Orig and Eus
82 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES,
are found to hold both readings, of which xatevavts was preferred by
the mss. Where their testimony is absent B ventures to join D in one
place and not in the other. D alone is consistent in all three places.
If Ὁ be right, the others are clearly wrong in not giving us κατέναντι in
all three places.
But I am pretty sure that ἀπέναντι is Matthaean, and κατεναντι
Marcan. Note again the Marcan wording :
Mark
xi. 2. xatevayre all but a few scattering witnesses.
xii. 41. κατεναντι all and 69-124 (and careverrioy 138-846-556) except
BU min® Dam ἀπέναντι
xiii. 8. xatevavrs all
And note in St. Luke:
xix. 80. xarevavts all but a few scattering witnesses.
So that although B tries to obscure the issue again in Mark (where
the absence of ND shows he is wrong) he cannot do it. azevayrs remains
Matthaean, and carevayrs Marcan and Lucan.
[In the epistles κατενωπίον is the expression. Hence the reading
above of part of the 13 family.] But it is just in such places that our
tables of synoptic wording have become muddled owing to the use of the
Westcott and Hort text.
As t0 avavtaw, cuvavtaw, vravtaw see under “ Coptic” at Matthew
xxv. 1.
Grammatical Changes :
Of voice, of mood, of tense [and see separately for historic present],
of case, of number, and of order.
Change of Voice.
Matt.
xii. 22. προσηνεγκαν avtw δαιμονίξζομενον τυῴλον καὶ κωῴφον B (syrr
diatess sah boh aeth) against all Greeks and Latins:
mpoonvexOn αὐτω δαιμονιίξομενος Tupros καὶ κωφος.
This is a most important passage, for it is uncomplicated by the
parallel Luke xi. 14 (g.v.). It also involves a change of case.
Hort has the temerity to place it in his text on the sole authority of
B® and versions, against ND and all other Greeks and all the Latins
conjoined. Soden now adds 3 (ὃ 30) and his 1444, but not Sinai 260.
Of many minor variations in this passage and in this verse we need
not take account here. The plain fact remains that B followed the
versions here with the active voice, and from the form it is coptic rather
than syr which (with ff, h) expresses ‘‘ and they brought to him a certain
demoniac who was dumb and blind” (syr pesh; “blind and deaf” syr cu).
The matter is in a nutshell here for any who will examine it.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 33
Matt.
tt.
xix. 20. εφυλαξα (pro εφυλαξαμὴ) NBDUL 1 22 Ath against the
rest and Origen Ath“ Chr. In Mark x. 20 εφυλαξα is read by
AD 28 892 Clem Orig (the more semitic ἐποίησα by fam 1 209
syr sin, as Ephr Aphr in Matthew) but εφυλαξαμην by NB
rell. In Luke xviii. 21 εφυλαξα by NABL fam 1 Dial against
εφυλαξαμην D and the rest. The question may well be asked
why syr sin uses evrounca only in Mark, with fam 12° This
Marcan recension must be further enquired into. Servavi
is there used by vg?™@ See further remarks under the head
of ‘‘ Improvement.”
Observe at Matt. xxvii. 57 NCD fam 1 33 273 604 Evst 17, but no
others, change the voice of εμαθητευσεν, by B and the rest, to εμαθητευθη,
probably because it follows καὶ autos.
μαθητεύω is essentially Matthaean (and only occurs elsewhere once
in Acts xiv. 21 pabnrevoavres). At Matt xiii. 52 we read μαθητευθεις,
and at xxviii. 19 μαθητευσατε. I only mention it to show how liberties
are taken, even when the combination & 1 33 604 includes Ὁ. B is
absent here from this combination and on the active side, and rightly,
for the classical synonyms are generally used in the active voice.
Ignatius (ad Rom ὃ v) however: “Ἔν δὲ τοῖς ἀδικήμασιν αὐτῶν μᾶλλον
μαθητεύομαι " ἀλλ᾽ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι ᾽᾽ uses the middle.
Change of Mood.
xii. 86. ὃ λαλησουσιν (pro οεαν λαλησωσιν) NB (and Ὁ do λαλουσιν)
against the rest and L and Orig. (See further under ‘“ Traces
of Syriac.’’)
Change of Participle Tense: aorist for present.
xiii. 18. o7eipavtos (pro σπειροντο) N*BXW® 33 213 Sod"-® Hust 4
solt [seminantis latt copt (syr), D rell σπειροντος]
94, σπειραντι (pro omepovtt) NBMXWATI min alig latt pl et
verss [sed seminanti dh k 6 vg® et rell gr et D]
It looks as if while omepavts may be right in xiii. 24 that
σπείροντι is right in xill. 18 and that NBXW® there are merely trying
to equate the two passages, which should not: equate but differ
slightly.
xii, 23. συνιεὶς (pro συνιω) NBD*b 238 892 Sod™? Orig. This
appears very deliberate, as much for the sake of euphony
with o7apess perhaps or for contradistinction of the pair
ακουων. «συνίων as for anything else...omapeis ουτος ἐστιν o
τὸν Aoyov ακουων Kat συνίεις. They do not write συνεὶς but
συνιεὶς SO that apparently the present participle is intended
D
34 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt. ;
but in a different form. But see Rom. iii. 11 where συνίων is
accepted. by all.
Observe however B at Luke xxiv. 45 alone writing cuvewas (aor. inf.)
for cuvtevat, ΟΝ συνειεναι.)
xxiii. 17. 0 ayiacas (pro o ayafwvy) NBDZ 892 d (ὦ no doubt
following his Gk, because all other Latins are against d).
No cursives appear to join NBDZ besides 892, and sah
boh arm aeth with the Latin appear to be against the
change. I believe o ayiacas to be an “improvement,”
followed however by Soden as well as Hort. The place,
however, should be considered in connection with:
21. κατοικουντι (pro κατοικησαντ) NBHS® fam 1 fam 18 etc.
txt. recept. latt copt et verss vid. Here CDLZITAII al une’
oppose with κατοικησαντι, as do WSY and as does 892.
Here the versions reverse their position and go with NB. One’s
preference would be against NB in xxiii. 17 and with them in xxiii. 21
where they hold the textus receptus.
Hort has a very unsatisfactory solution, for he places ayiacas in his
text verse 17 without marginal comment, while in verse 21 against
κατοίκουντι he has in his margin κατοικησαντι, so there seems to have
been no system, unless D was considered an absolute balancing factor.
Soden has ayacas and κατοικησαντε.
As to Infinitive.
Interchange of present and aorist infinitive and imperative.
Examples :
xii. 10. θεραπευσαι cag where δὲ and B are on different sides.
θεραπευειν
ΧΙ. 3. σπειραι NDLMXW minn aliq
σπείρειν B rell
xvi. 21. δεικνυναι B™ cum Orig*™ [Soden adds nothing]
δεικνύειν δὲ rell et Origsve
Xxii. 23. adewas NBL χϑὸ 7pe
agvevat CD rell omn
As to infinitive tenses ¢f Orig Eus ad Matt xxiii. 87 επισυναξαι
(pro ertovvayayev) and cf Luc.
Imperative.
v. 42. δος NBDW fam 18 [non 346] 892 Sod": Clem
διδου plur
xix. 17. type BD soli et W-H txt (τηρη 2°)
τηρησον NCL reil
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 35
Matt.
: So at xxii. 17. erov LZ 88
XVili. 17. εἰπὸν NL Orig against ere NB rell
εἰπε B rell Cyr Bas and xxiv. 3. «ov I, 1 33
against ere NB reli
χχὶ. 2. πορευεσθε SBDLZj min” Orig Hus Chr
πορευθητε C rell
Change of Case.
Genitive Absolute.
viii. 1. καταβαντος δε αὐτου (pro xataBayts Se avrw) BC(Z)W Sod
and δὲ» 892 min alig W-H & Sod txt
As this is the first case to be noticed, it should be observed most
carefully that N* does not do this here. So that δὲ opposes B at
the very outset of a series in ch. viii. as to what is, I am convinced,
a deliberate change. The point is that, as Burgon expressed it,t writing
upon “‘style’’: ‘‘ The attentive reader of S. Matthew’s Gospel is aware
that a mode of expression which is six times repeated in his viii*® and
ix" chapters is perhaps only once met with besides in his Gospel,—
viz. in his xxi** chapter.” Burgon referred to viii. 1 καταβαντι αντω,
viii. 5 εἰσέλθοντι τω I., viii. 23 εμβαντι αὐτω, viii. 28 ελθοντι avrw, ix. 27
Kat Tapayovtt Tw 1., ix. 28 eAOovre Se, xxi. 23 καὶ ἔλθοντε avTw.
Now as B does not change all these datives, it might be thought
that ‘‘ Antioch” for some reason had made a harmonious whole and
turned some genitives into datives in the supposed revision. It is just
here that ® offers its important testimony, for N does no¢ use the
genitive on the first occasion, thereby showing that it was Egypt which
revised some of St. Matthew’s datives, and not Antioch which cancelled
some genitives. See further remarks under this head in St. Luke and
St. John.
The second case occurs four verses later, at :—
viii. 5. εἰσέλθοντος δὲ αὐτὸ NBCZ 892 min aliq W-H ἃ Sod tat
(Orig εἰσέλθοντος του κυριου)
_ but εἰσέλθοντι δὲ avtw all the rest
vill. 28. καὶ edXOovros αὐτου BC et δὲ ᾧ Sod et Sod®* 892 min
pauc (και ἔλθοντων αυτων &*)
Kat ελθοντι avTw all the rest
XX1. 28. καὶ ἔλθοντος αὐτου NBCDL® 1 fam 18 88 604 899
Sod’ [non al.] Orig bis W-H & Sod txt
Kat ἔλθοντι avTo the rest
What is this but a Greek “improvement”? The small limited group
speaks for itself.
¢ ‘Last twelve verses of St. Mark,’ p. 141.
36 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
It is noteworthy that avrw διδάσκοντι remains unchanged later in
the verse (although some Latins and Syr omit διδασκοντί, expressed by
the other Latins ad eum docentem) so that the dative absolute rather
hangs together throughout: καὶ ἕλθοντε avtw εἰς τὸ Lepoy προσηλθον
auto SidacKovTs...
See beyond in the other Gospels as to Genitive Absolute, where we
find the same revision to the Genitive in St. Mark, but nothing of the
kind in 51. Luke and St. John, because there were no datives to revise !
Kind of Accusative Absolute (involving Change of Order).
Matt.
xxvi. 40. L alone [Soden adds no others] changes evpev avtous καθευδοντας
to evpey καθευδοντας avtovs
Observe in the parallel in LuxKz xxii. 45 NBDLTY do the same:
eupey κοιμωμενους αὐτοὺς instead of evpev αὐτους xo. Observe
further that T is a graeco-sahidic, and therefore this Greek is contrary to
coptic order. Note that d (alone of Latins) follows with dormientes 608, ἵ
and note that in Matt. xxvi. 48, Mark xiv. 37 40 no change is made in the
order, and it becomes a personal matter where the change ts made.
To this add:
xvii. 25. Among ἃ tremendous variety of readings distributed over the
“clever” mss, the usual reading ore εἰσηλθεν by the mass of
Greeks is confirmed by the versions, but where Dd bn use a
dative (absolute) εἰσέλθοντι, and 33 a genitive abs. ἐλθοντων
avtwov, and Sod* fam 18 εἰσέλθοντων, and a is content with
intrantes, δὲ and B use an accusative, N* εἰσέλθοντα εἰς τὴν
ox., BN? 1 892 ελθονταὰ εἰς ocx. In view of the immense
variety of expressions [see under “ Differences between S and
B’’] it must fairly be admitted that NB are improvising.
Now note:
xxvi. 71, where NBLZ. 892 min pauc do not care for an acc. absolute,
for they suppress αὐτὸν in εξελθοντα Se avrov, the reading
of nearly all others. D® Hust 17 have εξεέλθοντος δὲ αὐτου (ὦ
latin wanting) and the Latins mostly favour exeunte autem
illo, but an “‘egressus.” As to br they actually give us a
Latin acc. absolute ‘‘exeuntem autem illum,” f2 as printed
‘“‘exeunte autem illum,” g; “ exeuntem illo.”
W confirms εξέλθοντα Se avrov, and from the Latin testimony it looks
as if avrov had been suppressed by NBLZ.
+ As if “" dormientibus illis invenit eos.”
But not elsewhere in the other four passages (Matt. and Mark), so that, as I have
often thought throughout the study of Luke, the conjunction of D with NBL has a different
significance in this Gospel to what it has elsewhere. It is not “" Western” agreeing with
NBL, but NBLD in St. Luke’s Gospel the outcome of some common text tradition.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 37
Change of Case.
Matt.
x. 16. εἰς το μεσον λυκων B (for ev rw μεσω λυκων) ff, k vg® (Lucif).
This is clear ‘‘improvement” after ἀποστελλω vas. Cf also
Matt. xxvii. 5. (Note D™ at Luke x. ὃ pecov λυκων).
25. Tw οικοδεσποτη and Tots orxvaxots B* alone (pro τον οἰκοδεσποτην
and τους οἰκιακους) (governed by erexadecav) ; commen text is
exareoav, but nearly all authorities are for ἐπεκαλ. επικαλεω
would seem to favour a dative, while καλέω (except in middle)
takes accusative. Juachmann and IWV-H mg follow B.
xiv. 19. ἐπὶ tov χορὸ NBC*IWE®@ Sod 1 22 88 al Origa
W-H Sod txt
emt Tov xoptovy [Ὁ 16 61 892 latt sah boh pl aeth arm (syr cu)
ems τοὺς χορτους ΟἿ rell unc omn min pl [non verss praeter
boh® syr sin 2]
ἐπὶ τὴν (της) ynv (yns) boh™® syr pesh
emt TOV YOpTOUS 810 L (ef exax nexoptoc sah)
Whether * herbage” plural or “grass’’ singular is original cannot
be determined. I incline to the reading of D, regarding the genitive after
emt here as an ‘“‘improvement’”’ of NB Origen.
The foregoing is more important than it seems, for very close after
occurs another case which I think illustrates the matter perfectly, and
fixes the authorship of both changes as that of Origen.
xiv. 25. ἐπὶ τηνθάλασσαν SNBPT*WAO® Sod 1 [non 118-209]
fam 13 22 238 Sod" *"4 Orig
emt τῆς θάλασσης CD rell Luss
Observe this is a change in inverse ratio to the last. The genitive of
rest—(we can almost see Origen at work)—belongs to ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου in
ver 19, but the accusative of motion belongs to ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν in ver 25.
Tisch emphasises our point for us by saying of Origen “ praeterea notat :
ov γεγραπται λθεπρος avTous περίπατων ETL TA κυματα, GA ETL τα VdaTA,”
Clearly then Origen employed the accusative after ἐπὶ here as of motion
on or over the waters, and the accusative must be an emendation for the
poor fisherfolk’s Greek genitive.
Itis true that in the next verse 26 NBCD(T*) have ἐδοντες αὐτὸν emi τῆς
θαλασσης περύπατουντα and not ems τὴν Gad. περυπ. as the rest, but I doubt
whether this affects my contention, as ‘‘ they saw him on the sea..
walking.” Besides it is a delicate point as to the exact case which em
should govern here.
My point seems well taken, because a little further on δὲ gets an
opportunity and avails of it (xvi. 19) to exhibit the difference between
dnons emt τῆς yns, Which he leaves unchanged, and Avans ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
which latter he changes to Avons ἐπὶ THY γην.
But these little things were done in passing, because at xvili. 18
Avante επί τῆς γης (following δησητε ers τῆς yns) is left unchanged by δὲ,
38
Matt.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
xxv. 18. See Ὁ. 67. Nothing further occurs until
7, where NBDM@® fam 1 (118 hesitans) fam 13 [non 124] 106
XXVi.
XXVii.
[xi.
xii.
xiii.
[ xvii.
XVii.
XXV.
XXVi.
XXVii.
48,
82.
23.
. (Improvement) εφαγον for εφαγεν NB 0%. W-H not Sod. This
16.
81.
§2.
801 604 et Hvstteee™ prefer ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλης for ems τὴν κεφαλὴν
of the rest and Basil. In Mark xiv. 3 a partitive genitive is
used κατέχεεν αὐτου τῆς Kepadns (—emt). Perhaps the Marcan
diction influenced NBD in Matthew. The presence of ten
Lectionaries and but few cursives lends some emphasis.
πέποιθεν et tw Sew 218 alone for wer. ee τὸν θεον with
lait?! [non ὁ ἃ f σι vg?®®] with Hus 1/2 and Juvencus. Apart
from possible Latin sympathy, it would seem to be the most
delicate appreciation among Greeks of the alternative case to
use after a certain shade of meaning of the verb. I class it here
and under Latin, as well as under solecisms of B. Observe Eus is
on both sides. Hort put τω θεω in his margin.
Change of Number.
. See under ‘“‘ Improvement.”
. avEavovow and κοπίωσιν and νηθουσν NB Sod fam 1 4 33
273 Sod'® Ath copt et verss for avéave. .. koma . . under (after
τὰ κρίνα tou aypov) of all the rest. Soden ἐπέ plural as well as
Hort.
επιξζητουσιν (pro επιΐξητει) after ra εθνη NB min pauc copt
contra rell. We have to assume that ail others strove for im-
provement by writing the verb singular, or that NB thought
it best to employ the plural. Soden txt plural like Hort.
εἐμεινεν (pro eyeway) see under “ Syriac.” |
follows εἰσῆλθεν, but is accommodated to the previous verse
8 οὐκ ἀνεγνωτε τί ἐποίησε AGS ott ἐπείνασεν (avTOS) καὶ OF μετ᾽
αὐτου. Obs. here that the coptics oppose NB and have εφαγεν.
. εξανετείλαν (pro εξανετειλεν) B only with vg and some latins
“ exorta sunt” (and k fructicaverunt) and coptic.
axovovow (pro axovet) following wra (to accord with βλέπουσιν,
following however οφθαλμοι) NBCDMX% al Orig latt contra
unc” al. pl.
. L (and HUD) change eyevero following ἐμάτια αὐτου to eyevovro.
Not so D* (although ὦ is facta sunt) nor B rell. It is
mentioned to show the tendency as represented by L.]
. See under ‘‘ Improvement.”
. συναχθησονταῦ (pro συναχθήσεται) as to mavta ta ebm
NBDGKLUI al.
διασκορπισθησονται (pro -σεται) a8 to τα προβατα
NABCGH*ILM al. copt Orig 1.2
nyepOnoay (pro nyepOn) as to πολλα σωματα by NBDGL [non
ΝΥ] min perpauc copt Orig Eus (ανεστησαν Cyr) seems clearly
Egyptian.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 39
{The singular verb after neuter pl. is not unusual in N.T. Greek.
Cf Matt xiii. 4 κατεφαγεν all as to τα πετεινα, although some have ἡλθον.
The Latins and d all venerwnt and comederunt incl. d agst D*
mov .. xatepayev. The cases mentioned above trace to the “ version
influence’ and predominantly to the coptic, which favours the plural
after these neuters. But observe that W avoids all this.]
The point here raised seems to me to be of a good deal of importance
and quite interesting. At first sight the narrow view may be that
these few Egyptian Mss, representing as Hort might have said ‘the
watchful scholars of Alexandria,” are preserving “‘ the true text”? with
their plural verbs, and that ‘“ Antioch,” in a purist mood, changed them
to the singular after the neuter plurals. To do this ‘“‘ Antioch” would
have had to forget the versions ringing in its ears, and have outdone
Alexandria in an affectation of purism in its Greek. Since the
Egyptian practice however, as represented by the Copts, is to employ the
verb in the plural number in such cases, it is more likely that these few
Egyptian Mss (plus some others in certain of the cases) displaced the
singular in the Greek from an innate habit in such cases. It would not
merit so much attention if we did not find these mss habitually revising
throughout. But as we do, and as we shall prove this in these pages, I
consider the probabilities are that the singular number employed by the
‘‘ traditional” text is the correct base and was modified in Egypt, owing
to the ‘‘ version tradition.”’ The cases at vi. 28, 32 and xiii. 5 (B alone)
are to be considered more especially in this connection.
Change of Order.
Matt.
vi. 33. > καὶ τὴν δικαίοσυνην καὶ τὴν βασίλειαν avTov B alone
xi, 9.» προφητην ew for We " προφητην; N*BZW 892 Sod™* Orig
26. > evdoxia eyeveto NBW Sod 1 33 892 k (copt) Sod tat
ΧΙ, 44. > εις τὸν οἰκον μου emiotpeyro NBDZ 7 33 892 aeth against
rell and all other versions. Sod txt follows NB.
xiil. 89. > ὁ δὲ εχθρος ἐστιν o σπειρας avta o διαβολος _B alone
ἐστιν alone occupies this position in B. He may have
hesitated as to omission of aura, or of eyOpos as some.
xiv. 18. > φέρετε μοι ὧδε avtous (pro φερετε μοι αὐτοὺς woe) NBZ
33 vg? only. This is a small matter but an almost impossible
order, and against sah and (bok). ὡδὲ is omitted (and the
“neutral” text me judice is without it) by Dd 1 boh alig
syr cu sin it?! [the vulgates vary the order tremendously]
vg. No doubt it was added in the margin of the parents
of NBZ and found its way into the wrong place in the
text. Soden however follows Hort and NBZ.
40 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt.
“xvi. 21. > ore det avtov εἰς Ἱεροσολυμα απέλθειν = NBD* 1 fam 1333157
y** 6 Orig Iren™ Hil (for ote Se avrov ἀπέλθειν evs lepoo.). The
change savours of improvement but Soden likes and adopts it.
xvii. 4. >oxnvas τρεῖς Be (cf Luc ix. 88) W-H marg.
xix. 16. > προσέλθων avtw εἰπεν (pro προσέλθων evrev avtw) NB Sod”
fam 18 157 892 Sod” (et tat) ὁ f sah arm aeth Chr Auct? imp
(Just) against the rest and syr. This involves a change in
the sense. Boh and Old Latins a ὃ ὁ g h q complete with
προσελθων αντω ELTTEV AUTO.
It is rather indeterminate, for while Justin*? says προσέλθοντος auto
Twos Kat εὐποντος, in Trypho he says λέγοντος avtw τινος (Clem™™ and
Marcos" are indeterminate).
Xxil. 28. >ev ty avactaces ον NBDL fam 1 fam 13 2° (Sod) 604
Sod'ts boh syr (om ovv syr sin) for ev tn ovv avactacet
of nearly all other Greeks and sah. Soden follows Hort
and NBDL.
It seems to bea sheer improvement. D joins probably because
ἃ had it with the other Latins, who had already changed the
order when translating, as syr pesh (but syr sin omits). What
reason on earth could there be for poor ‘‘ Antioch” to change
to ev τὴ ουν avactaces ?
40. (involving change of number) A most important place :
ev Tavtats ταῖς δυσιν ἐντολαῖς odos (om N) syr diatess copt)
0 νομὸς Ῥκρεματαῖι Kat ot προφηταις δὲ ΒΌΤΙΖΣ 33 892 (pro
ev ταῦτ. τ. δυσιν evT. ολος ο VOLOS >Kat OL προῴφηται KpewavTat
W® unc rell min et fam 1 13 604 2? omn)
The change is very old but still looks like “improvement.” With
NBDLZ> 33 892 are ranged the Latins including Ter#%™ with syrr [but
diatess™ “are hung the law and the prophets,” as δέν “‘ pendent tota
lex et prophetae”’; notice the order], while for W® and the mass,
including all the important cursives (but 33 892) are to be added sah boh
very distinctly—sah : ‘The law and the prophets are hanging on these
two commandments,” doh: “On these commandments two the law with
the prophets were hung "—together with Clems (ev τουτω ολος 0 νομὸς Kat
οὐ προφηται KpewavTas, aNd : εν ταυταῖς λέγει ταῖς ἐντολαῖς ολον TOV νομὸν καὶ
Tous προφητας κρεμασθαι τε καὶ εξηρτησθαι), also Origi"' 1/5 and Orig?
Basil is on both sides. Thus it is by no means certain that NB are
right. Their great allies the sah and boh desert them,f and I prefer the
harder reading of W. (Soden tat follows Hort and NB etc.)
xxiv. 44. > ov δοκεῖτε wpa (pro ἡ wpa ov Soxerte) NBDI 604 892 d vg
boh Ath contra rell
It is a little suspicious for Ath joins, and Li says wpa ἡ ov
δοκείτε, not going with NB, but Sod follows Hort and NBDI.
+ Plainly then neither sah nor boh used δὲ or B.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 41
Matt.
xxvi. 86. > exes προσευξωμαι (pro προσευξ. exer) NBDL fam 69 [non
1247} 88 157 892 Sod® et txtabed f Κι} 4} sah boh Orig™
(Hi G2 aeth iluc et orem). This is a place where with a
good many others (not noticed) copt and lat together support
NB. Read exes evEouar 604 [non —; corrige ed.| after the
Egyptian form.
Thus at xxvi. 39 προελθων (for προσελθων) BMU* are supported by
Latin “ progressus” (ὦ only accedens) and sah boh very distinctly also
support προεέλθων.
Historic Present.
‘Tt will be seen in the following lists that the ‘ historic present’ is
very frequent in Mark’s narrative, comparatively rare in Matthew’s, and
extremely rare in Luke’s.... Now if (as we see was probably the case
in other matters) Matthew and Luke made this change of phraseology
from Mark, they were only preferring a more usual to a less usual mode
of expression. For it appears from the LXX that the employment of
the historic present had been up to this time by no means common with
the writers of the sacred story in the Kew or Hellenistic Greek...
And Dr. J. H. Moulton says that it is common in the papyri.” (‘ Hore
Synoptice,’ Hawkins, pp. 1483/4.)
Tt follows from this that St. Matthew and St. Luke changed the
historic present of St. Mark’s source if that source was a written one
and the one from which they drew. Or that they found in their κ᾿
few historic presents, or if they found them that they changed them.{
Then, later, the papyri show us, and Alexandrian second and third
century writers bear this out, that the historic present, and especially the
imperfect, came into vogue. Hence the changes in this direction found
in δὲ and B in Matthew, Luke and John (cf. Matt xiv. 19 xerever Orig 2/3).
If one consults Tischendorf at Apoc. xii. 13 as to εδιωξεν, we read in
his note: “N* εξεδιωξεν (N* corrupte edwxev).” But it is nothing of the
sort. εδωκεν is corrupte for ἐδίωκεν. I found this confirmed by the full
commentary of Oecumenius in Apoc 146 (Messina®) where the imperfect
stands in his text and ἐβ repeated three times over in his commentary.
Gigas’ latin also gives the imperfect. I mention this in an introductory
manner, because the text of Oecumenius’ ms of the Apoc. is thoroughly
blexandrian and unites the base of δὲ and A, and this (unpublished)
passage gives us a true picture of Alexandrian usage. See my article on
Occumentus in American Journ. of Philology, Oct. 1913.
+ Hiat 18; προσευξωμαι κακει 124, Om exer 4.2°° arn syr.
} This “Q” business seems to me to lack a proper foundation. St, Luke’s language
is so utterly his own that he could hardly have used any other written source than notes
prepared for his own use. Consult Dr. Hobart’s work on the ‘ Medical Language of
St. Luke,’ Dublin, 1882. Every page of St. Luke’s Gospel is saturated with his own way
of expressing matters, now expanding, now contracting the narrative, but ever with a
method, a manner and a diction which are personal.
42 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt.
ΧΙ]. 28. Aeyouow (pro εὐποὸ NBCD 88 (Sod) 157 892 Sod#' 8%
laté pl (against rell and f ffi ᾳ sah boh arm aeth)
How come NB to desert coptic here? The authorities do not agree
about this verse, for B drops the δουλοι so as to make a pair o δὲ edn
αὐτοῖς. . ot Se λεγουσιν αὐτω, and BC write avtw λέγουσιν while ND
λεγουσιν avTw; and edn at the beginning is changed to the present
by the Latins ait. Cf the next verse φησιν or λέγει NBC Jatt (all
varying among themselves) against e¢ and εὐπεν of the majority. Cf also
long quotation from Epiph™" in Tisch. showing some interesting
variations. (—autw Sod cum pers).
Kili. 52. Neyer (pro eemev) B**DI 892 Sod? 4 vg tt
But this is more than a historic present (λέγουσιν avTw vas " eyet
avtows...) to conform to the Aeyovew preceding, for it shows that when
reyes follows λέγουσιν thus, B°* does not object as the historic present is
maintained, while elsewhere to avoid tautology (see under “ Improvement ”
Matt. xii. 48, Luke ix. 21) Neyovrs is substituted for ewrovre following
εὐπτερν.
We shall see much more later on of the historic imperfect favoured
by the Alexandrian school and B. An illustration offers at Matt. ix. 9
of δὲ (who also elsewhere prefers this) deliberately siding with D 21 892
ἃ alone of all authorities (+ Sod*** et Sod txt!) for ηκοόλουθει here instead
of ηκολουθησεν, which should be noted, as it opposes all other Greeks, and
all Latins (but d) and both coptics.
In the very next verse but one (ix. 11) NBCLW 892 al*!4 prefer
édeyov with many latins to erov against the rest and ὦ k copt. Soden tat
does not adopt ἔλεγον although his same new Mss as in ix.9 do so. Again
ix. 19. ηκολουθεε NCD 33 Sod™® (non txt) lati”; ἠκολουθησεν B relt
copt f k
28. They prefer this historic imp. even above the historic present,
having here ἔλεγεν NBD 892 it?! boh, against dixit σ 91 ἢ
k sah syr Sod“ εἰπεν, and reyet CW unc! gr mult
The same applies to ix. 80 where NB* fam 1 22 892 (those faithful
adherents, see at vi. 5, 18) Sod!" et ἐπέ prefer ενεβρίμηθη to ενεβριμησατο
of all the rest and versions (but comminabatur by aethimt Walton)
xv. 25. mpocexuves (pro προσεκυνησε)ὺ N*BDM 1 fam 13 88 al. tat
rec Orig be ἃ ffi giz k boh*™ (sah adorans)
This is against all other uncials and W for προσεκυνησεν including boh.
(At xv. 31 B has εδοξασαν with most, but NL ηυ and Latin huve
εἐδοξαζον. I mention it because k* not content with clarijica-
bant actually has clarijicant.)
xv. 86. εδιδου (pro εδωκεν) NBD 1 fam 13 33 157 892 ἃ Chr Thdor™ns schol
This against the other Greeks, all other Latins and versions. Why
should the “Antioch” revision have constantly cancelled the historic
imperfect? ‘Far more likely that NB made the changes. A scholion
is always a dangerous adherent for them, as here. We would surely
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 43
find a trace of dabat in a or e or ὦ if legitimate. This remark is the
more apposite because immediately afterwards at xv. 87 B alone with D
and nearly all Latins has an important change of order which is clearly
influenced by the Latin. (εδιδου xv. 36, Sod'*** only new witness, but also
Sod tet).
Matt.
xvii. 20. ὁ δὲ reyes (pro o δὲ evrev) NBD 1 fam 18 88 it?! syr οὐ Sod
txt contra C reli gr et a@ f gan 4 copt.
xviii. 25. exer (pro exyev) Not content here with evyev and habebat of
all Latins, B with only Sod 1 56 58 124 Sod Orig 1/2
makes a deliberate change to the present.
xix. 21, Aeyer (pro epy) B Sod and fam 18 only of Greeks, with lat.
xxi. 18. This is a very important place (following xxi. 1/12 where the
synoptic influences are all at work). NBL 124 [contra fam]
892 with boh acth™ Orig 2/4 and Hus (and only these + Sod")
read ποιεῖτε, making an historic present of it, “ but ye make it
a den of thieves.” 604 avoids it and against it are the mass
including DW with evonoare as Basil (and St. Luke), and
1 Justin Orig 2/4 πεποιηκατε (as St. Mark) and as latt ‘‘fecistis”
with sah arm and Tren, But Soden ἐξέ prints ποίειτε.
Now the reason for the change by Orig 2/4 and Hus with boh aeth
and only NBL 124 892 to zovecre appears most subtle. It would make
three various readings in Matt. Mark and Luke instead of two (= one,
because aorist = perfect). In Jeremiah vii. 11 no verb is used, the verb
appearing in verse 10. Thus 10 fiz: to μη Trove wavra τὰ Boer. TavTa CON-
tinuing (11) μη σπηλαίων λήηστων, 80 that, as “τὸ μὴ Tove” is used, there
seemed liberty here in Alexandria to employ the favorite historic present.
xxi. 48. Observe a place emphasising the historic present [which
here stands unchanged by all} for after δία τοῦτο Aeyw υμὲν
NB Sod 28 64 118-209 248 2P° 604 892 Sod'"* * Hosts septem
with Arnob omit or. Here boh sah [except boh™] retain
the usual introductory xe, as also syr and lat. This matter
is omitted in Tisch N.T., but supplied in ‘Emendanda.’
NorE.—I dare not extend this essay to cover peculiarities of other Mss.
Yet note that the historic present is favoured by L alone even when the
others do not use it, 6.0. xxii. 4 αποστελλεν pro αἀπεστειλεν Li only,
although leaving ἀπέστειλεν in ver 3 [Tren vers 3 “et mittenti” ; Hil.
ver 4 ‘qui vero iterum cum preceptorum conditione mittuntur”]. L of
course is close to the ‘family ” NB, and observe soon after that Li Orig
Jren™ are alone in omitting αὐτου at xxii. 6, so that the text is “old”
enough for ἀποστέλλει in ver 4 to attract attention. Origen, as I have
said before, is no fair representative of any pure text, for hereabouis he
goes jumping about in his preferences, using aveAev at xxii. 7 (and
deliberately, for he repeats ἀναέρουσε [observe the tense] soon after) with
fam 1 22 against ἀπώλεσεν of NB rell. Again, ver 8 he omits ἐστιν
with Chr Dam and ΔῚΣ only and Sod,
44 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
I may also call attention to the use by & alone at xxvi. 21 of λεγε
for evrev of our Lord’s opening speech at the last supper.
And as bearing on the freedom with which such matters were handled
in the time of Tatian, we notice that when quoting St. John i. 5 (contra
Graecos) instead of saying καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ ov κατέλαβεν, Tatian
Says: καὶ τοῦτο ἐστιν dpa τὸ εἰρημένον " ἡ σκοτία τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει.
Next we will consider Harmonistic Readings, and finally General
Improvement.
Harmonistic Omissions.
Matt. .
xx. 16. The final clause πολλοὶ yap εἰσι κλητοι ολύγοι δὲ EKAEKTOL 18
removed by NBLZ 36 892 sah boh (some aeth mss, not
Walton), but only by these, as being an importation from
xxii. 14. But Orig>* witnesses for it at this place (besides
thrice at xxii. 14). The Latins are a unit with all the Syriacs
(both cw and sin being extant here at xx. 16) for the clause,
not even 6 or ff ΟΥ̓́Τ joining what I must regard only as an
“Egyptian” conspiracy, and so I enter this also under
“Coptic.” It is not a question, I am sure, of the coptics
sharing an underlying text of NBLZ, for D is against them
and W and all the rest, nor do the sympathising cursives join
NB, not even 33, which here keeps with its great friend
Origen. Here then our xIx century restoration did not give
us even Origen’s Greek Testament, and Hort accuses him
e stlentio of having failed to report the “‘ shorter” text here.
But Hort had doubts, for he puts the disputed clause in the
margin. Not so Soden, who simply excludes (with 571 144° +),
A light is thrown on the proceeding (but we do not observe these
things contextually as we should) for at the beginning of the next verse
B and 1 alone of Gks, with saH BOoH and Orig (only 2/3), write μέλλων
δὲ ἀναβαίνειν for καὶ avaBawev against δὲ and the rest. Thus if the
text were basic in xx. 16 jin for the “ non-interpolation,”’ why should δὲ
desert B here? It must be because B was following sah.
Again (same verse xx. 17) τοὺς δωδεκα (-- μαθητας) is read by NLZ
and Ὁ 1 892 with boh, but sah joins B in writing τους δωδεκα μαθητας
(+avrov sah 1/2), so that sah and B are very close here. As to an
underlying text, it is δὲ (or syr cu sin tous δωδεκα αὐτου) which preserve
it, for Orig (quater) goes with δὲ against B here. Besides δὲ gives us the
syr base in the next verse xx. 18 εἰς θανατον with boh?! pers for ev θανατω
(which B aeth omit).
xxii. 80, —rov Geou BD fam 1 and all latt vett (but Fi gio ἢ) syr cu sin
sah arm and Orig, but probably because of Mark xii. 25.
xxili. 38. —epnyos fin. Only BL ff, syr 8 boh (some) and sah 3/4. The
group clearly belongs together, except perhaps syr 5. Origen
opposes (except Orig™® semel) and Clem arm aeth Eus Cyr
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 45
ere Treni™* Cypr have it. What is this but a harmonistic
“ shorter’? text based on the omission in Luke (ziti. 35)?
Many add epnyos in Luke, but there it would seem that the
evidence for the “shorter text”’ is ‘“‘overwhelming.”’ Soden
does not adduce a single new witness for omission in Matthew.
Harmonistic Additions.
vi. 22. -Ἐσου (post οφθαλμος prim.) B 372 it?! vg’* aeth Origi*® ex
Luc xi. 34 against δὲ and the rest.
vill. 9. + τασσομενος (post εἰμι ὑπὸ εξουσιαν) NB 4238 273 372 421
αὐ (observe the extraordinary comment these six utterly diverse
cursives offer on the situation, for it is not fam 1 or fam 13
or even 22 or 28, still less 157 or 33 or 892, which add with
NB; such a point is quite lost by Soden who neglects the
cursives previously reported, naming only 273 372) boh (sah)
latt multi Chr (semel!), against all the rest ; comes from Luke
vii. 8. (The excuse for the Latin [but f ff, 1 vgg™ Hier
and some others do not add] is that the Latin sib potestate
is rather bare without the addition of constitutus.)
xv. 38. +s (ante τετρακισχιίλίο.) B (δὲ) Sod 1 fam 13 22 33 157
Sod?** ff, (sah) arm aeth (ex Marc viii. 9) Sod outdoes W-H
(marg) adding txt outright.
δὲ seems to have been perplexed, for he and boh only omit in Mark,
while in Matthew he has a change of order alone where he adds [and
Tisch neglects to accept his witness there by error].
xxiv. 86. +ovde 0 vos N*etPBDD 13-124 28 86 Sod" aeth arm
it” syr hier [non sin pesh |
This must come from Mark xiii. 82 where practically all have it.
I do not wish to discuss this as it borders on another province of criticism,
merely pointing out that NB on occasion can add (when it suits them)
as well as omit. May I ask why other authorities “omit” here in
Matthew while retaining in Mark ?
The O.L. here is very closely related to the Diatess which quotes
from Mark xiii. 32, beginning a new paragraph at ὃ xlii. 32 and running
Mark xiii. 32/37 straight on.
Harmomstic Changes.
Matt.
x. 13. See under “ Improvement.”
xiv. 5. ewes (pro ott) 3B alone with 604 (επειδη NEM) Cf. xxi. 46
for the parallel under consideration.
xvi. 20. ἐπετίμησεν B*D W-H™' de syr cu against the rest and Origa"
(ex Marc et Luc). Soden adduces no new witnesses and excludes.
xviii. 6. (improvement) περι τὸν tpayndov only NBLZ=M 28 157 ys
Sod?" [non tat] Orig 1/2 Bas Cyr (= Marc ix. 42, Luc xvii. 2).
The Latins here (even ¢) in Matt have in (against circa Mark,
46 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Luke) with most Greeks including 1 13 22 Orig 1/2, while
only DU d have em.
Orig 1/2 is exceedingly suspicious, and why should περι be
changed if original ?
Matt.
xix. 24. tpnuatos N*B Orig 1/3 (Orig 1/3 tpuparvas cum plur,
Orig 1/3 τρυπης)
Mark
x. 25. τρηματος N* sol (Rell τρυμαλιας et BY; al. τρυπηματος)
Luk
xviii. 25. tpnuatos NBD 49 (τρυπηματος LR 157 pauc, τρυμαλίας plur)
Thus N is the only one who did not get tired of turning his pages
backward and forward and who is consistent throughout.
(Clem, like Orig, varies: δια τῆς τρυμαλίας της βελ., δια τρηματος ραφιδος,
δια τρυπηματος Bed., and fourthly simply δια βελονης.)
This is a place where we must call in outside assistance to settle a
textual difficulty, and the matter appears quite simple.
St. Matthew doubtless wrote da τρυπήματος ραφιδος,
St. Mark ip » δια (της) τρυμαλιας (της) ραφιδος,
St. Luke τὴ 1 δια τρημᾶτος βελονης.
We find NB changing St. Matthew’s τρυπηματὸος to St. Luke’s
τρηματος, but retaining St. Matthew’s ραφιδος. We find N changing
St. Mark’s τρυμαλίας to St. Luke’s τρήματος, while retaining the ραφιδος
belonging jointly to St. Matthew and St. Mark, which however fam 13
changes to βέλονης in Mark, as rudely Clem, who mixes up the passages.
Then we find that while NBD give us correctly τρημαᾶτος βέλονης in
St. Luke, the others harmonise there by writing, incorrectly, τρυπηματος
of Matthew or tpvwadsas of Mark, and many pagidos for βελονης.
I say ‘incorrectly’ because the wording δια τρηματος βέλονης
harmonises so beautifully with other medical diction of St. Luke that it
is hardly possible to challenge the reading of NBD(L) here. I quote from
Dr. Hobart, ‘ Medical Language of St. Luke,’ Dublin 1882, p. 60: “ The
words used by St. Luke are those which a medical man would naturally
employ, for βελόνη was the surgical needle, and τρῆμα the great medical
word for a perforation of any kind. But still further, we meet with
the same expression in Galen: ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ὅτι ῥάμμα τοῦ διατρήματος
τῆς βελόνης διῃρημένον ἕνεκα τοῦ συνάγειν ἀλλήλοις ἤτοε τὰ μόρια τοῦ
διατετμημένου σώματος. And to express the puncture made by the needle:
διὰ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν βελόνην τρήματος. Τρῆμα, peculiar to St. Luke, in
medical language was applied to all perforations in the body, e.g. in
the ears, nostrils, vertebrae, the sockets of the teeth, &c.’’ Dr. Hobart
adds seventeen other quotations from Hippocrates and Galen illustrating
this.
The question thus seems very simple and reduces itself to the fact
that δὲ harmonised all three passages by employing St. Luke’s τρήματος
¢ The reading of B* is uncertain, but not τρηματος.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 47
everywhere, that B did this in Matthew but not in Mark, while the
others, who correctly report Matthew and Mark, go wrong in Luke and
harmonise wrongly there to Mark’s τρυμαλιὰς or Matthew’s τρυπηματος,
the matter being self-evident by their employ of ραῴφιδος instead of
Berovns in Luke.
ee 17. For καὶ avaBawav B says μελλων Se avaBavev. B is
supported by 1 [non fam] sah boh syr pesh pers and Orig 2/3,
but it seems a clear reflection of Mark x. 32 (whence the
diatessaron draws) “σαν &€ ev τὴ οδω avaBawortes εἰς
Ἱεροσολυμα.᾿ I place this here and not under ‘ Coptic,” but
a glance under ‘‘ Coptic” will show that at xx. 8, 16, 34
there is an Hgyptian conspiracy involving B in the four
places, including xx. 17, so close and careful as to reveal B
and coptic as editors, and not as neutrals.
Just so δὲ +min° exhibits the process on its side at xx. 24 by writing
npEavto ἀγανακτεῖν with Mark (x. 41 [the diatess ὃ xxxi. opens with the
account from Mark x. 41/44]) instead of ηγανακτησαν. And if we look
beyond to xxii. 40 we find ~odos by δὲλ alone is the way of the diatessaron
with all the syriacs and sah boh?!; so that coptic is in sympathy here too.
ΧΧΙ. 2. κατεναντι (pro amevavtt) NBCDLZ® 892 al Orig 1/2 Hus
1/2 borrowing from Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 80 where κατέναντι
stands by all. (See under “" Synonyms.”’)
7. em αὐτων (primo loco) NBDLZ® 33 69 892* Sod™ Orig?s
(against ἐπάνω avrwy of all the rest)
This seems to be merely a reflection of Mark xi. 7 er avrov and
Luke xix. 35 emt τὸν πῶλον.
Tisch forgets to say that the rest of the 13 family omit the preposition
altogether and write auto.
xxi. 12. -- τοῦ θεου (cf Marc xi. 15 Luc xix. 45) See under “ Coptic”
and beyond under “ Improvement.”
25. ev eavrots (pro wap eavrows) BULM?Z 157 872 892 min’ (copt)
Cyr. This seems merely a “nicety” of harmony to Matt. xvi.
7 and 8 where ev eavrous is used on both occasions without
fluctuation among mss. Why then should “ Antioch ”
change at xxi. 25 to map eavrows? What reason would
there be?
xxli. 89. δεντερα (~Se) NB 4 157 Sod? only (against the versions
and sah boh pl) with sah™ doh*'=* comes from Mark xii. 31
“ devrepa avtn.”” Observe that B improvises (alone) in Matthew
by substituting ὁμοίως for ὁμοία avtn.
XXVii. 29. περιεθηκαν Β 181. ef Mare xv. 17 περιτιθεασιν.
33. εἰς Tov τόπον τον δὶ of Lue xxiii. 33 exactly.
Here is harmony in full blast in this “neutral” text. Consult in
the same verse 83 —)deyouevov by δὲ alone (= Marc xv. 22) and the
48 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
picture is complete as to both N and B harmonising in exactly the
place where they should be most careful not to do so if they expect our
confidence elsewhere.
[1 would call attention to xxvii. 35 without any emphasis because
the reading in the photographic edition of B cannot be determined. No
mention of it is made in Tischendorf’s notes, but in Gregory’s Emen-
danda attention is directed to B* διεμερισαν for διεμερίσαντο. In the
photograph it reads AlemepiCcA’® with a very small to which was
perhaps added by an early corrector. In the LXX as in B’s own text
of Ps. xxii. the reading is διεμερίσαντο. If διεμερίισαν B* be correct we
have an elimination of sibi after diviserunt with cf ff 91.. 7 72 Aug™™ and
vg omn (exceptis BQX Cerne dimma)t and syr, but sah boh are explicit
“among them.” In Mark xv. 24 the expression is διαμεριξονται τὰ
“ματιὰ αὐτου, but in Luke xxiii. 34 (where B had just been looking; see
above as to εἰς Tov τόπον Tov) it is διαμεριζομενοι Se ta ἐματια, without
any reflexive attribute. In Jo. xix. 24 the quotation shows διεμερίσαντο,
while in verse 23 the procedure is carefully explained, involving the
middle voice, for it is said of the soldiers ἐλαβον ta wmatia αὐτου καὶ
εποίησαν TETTAPA μερὴ EKATTHO TTPATLWTN μερος, καὶ TOV χιτωνα.]
Matt.
xxvii. 46. eSonoev BLW2 33 69-124 218 604 Sod™ only as Mark xv. 34.
All others with δὲ and Hus Bas aveBonoe and a ἃ δῇ, go ἢ
τοῦ διὰ ἘΞ (boh) exclamavit.
ibid. ἔλωει ἔλωει B (and sah) with cdo ἕλω δὲ 88 (and δολ)
seem distinctly to favour the Marcan form. Observe that
syr differentiates between the words used in St. Matt. and
St. Mark as do most Greeks, whereas NB alone, as usual,
obscure the issue. Yet Hort found absolutely nothing
“ Alexandrian ” or ‘‘ Egyptian” in codex B. Here, absolutely
alone, it is with saz in a particular form. He abandons the
spelling of B here for that of δὲ, although he was glad enough
to seize εβοησεν of B in the same verse against N. The
Revisers recognise the harmony, and go back to aveBoncev
and Hy: Ηλι, but the evidence in Souter’s footnote is wrongly
stated.
General Improvement.
ii, 22. βασίλευει τῆς Ἰουδαίας (—ems) NB 892 min pauc arm Eus.
Contra rell et it et sah o ἄρρο ext fovaara sed
boh plane xe Δρχελδος ETO! Novpo efiowaea=
NB. NB ex boh, vel boh ex NB?? (Soden follows NB.)
¢ In the quotation itself, omitted by most Greeks and ὦ f ffi.2 gil vggl5t, οὐδὲ is
found in a ὃ ὁ gz h g γὰ (mut r) vgg, but omitted by two vulgatesM 0.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 49
The answer seems given in this same verse where NBC*W alone
change the order of ηρωδου του πᾶτρος αὐτου of all anD sah boh to tov
πατρος αὐτου npwoov. (Sod does not follow, recognising synoptic influence.)
Had sah or boh been copying NB they might have used this order.
v. 10. evera δικαιοσυνης (pro evexev Six.) B solus. This is as clear
as can be, preferring eveca before a consonant, besides being
largely Homeric and classical. Cf λόγου evexa ‘‘ dicis causa,”
or τεχνῆς εἰνεκα (Anth). But B repeats evexa next verse
before ἐμου. [δὲ does not join B. Soden forgets to record B.]
Observe, however, that B leaves evexey ἐμοῦ alone before a vowel
at x. 18, 39, xvi. 25, Mark viii. 35, x. 29 primo loco, Luke ix. 24, but
alone makes it evexa ἐμου at Mark xiii. 9.
At Matt. xix. 29 it is δὲ which objects to evexey tov ἐμου. NS, with Ὁ
and Cyr, writes evexa tov μου, while B here remains with the rest. If
B changes in one place and N in another we may be perfectly sure that
it is editorial.
At Mark x. 29 evexey tov εὐαγγελίου is now left alone by NB reil,
and only changed here to evexa tov evayy. by D 71 and as Tisch. says
“cast” (a few omit the clause). At Luke xxi. 12 all evexev τοῦ ονομᾶτος
except Ὁ 71 who are for evexa τοὺ ovop.
At Luke vi. 22 all are agreed as to evexa tov viov except inconsistent
D who with FYPWI writes evexey τοῦ wou, reversing his position.
At Luke xviii. 29 NB with Sod'*" prefer εἰνεκεν τῆς βασιλείας (evexev
τῆς Bac. the rest, except U 71 which here desire evexa).
At Matt. xix. 5 SBLZ Orig change evexev tovtov to evexa τουτου.
It seems quite clear that Matthew wrote evecey throughout his Gospel.
At Mark x. 7 evexev τουτου is left unchanged by all.
At Luke iv. 18 ewexev eyypucev or evexev εγχρίσεν are found.
1 am far from saying that Neve or Bseribe or even Dive made the
changes, but their texts at some time in Egypt when in papyrus
book form were no doubt tampered with in order to try and make the
matter smooth.
Outside the Gospels we find. Acts xix. 32 evexey συνεληλυθεισαν most,
but evexa συνελ. NAB and four cursives; xxvi. 21 evexa τουτων apparently
all; xxviii. 20 evexev yap τῆς ελπτιδος all but N*A which write esvexev here ;
Rom. xiv. 20 μὴ evexev βρωματος all; 2 Cor. iti. 10 evexev τῆς ὑπερβαλλ.
δοξης most and many Fathers, but ewexev τῆς ὑπ΄. δοξ. by NABDEF**GP ;
2 Cor. vii. 12 evexev ter with infinitive by most including NB, only ewexev
EK and L (primo loco) Thdt Oec. From this it is abundantly clear that
changes everywhere are wilful. (Sod adds a few codd. varying.)
Matt.
vi. 7. viroxpitat Bj and syr cu [non syr sin pesh diatess |
εθνικοι all the rest
The verse runs : “‘ zrpocevyopevor δὲ μὴ βαττολογησητε ὡσπερ οἱ εθνικοι *
δοκουσι yap ott ev TH πολυλογια αὐτων εἰσακουθησονται."
B
50 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Clearly υποκρίται is an “‘ improvement,” being set up as a better
antithesis to BatroAoynontre than εθνίκοι would seem to be. ‘There is
nothing “neutral” about this, and Origen is against it. Mirabile dictu
W-H do not follow B here. How can Hort then account for what he
wrote (p. 237) about the “simple and inartificial character” of ‘“ the
few remaining individualisms of B,” “happily guiltless of ingenuity or
other untimely activity of the brain ” ?
See Hort vol. ii. ‘Select Rdgs.’ p. 10 on Matt. vii. 18 “Or, as we
rather suspect, as one of those rare rdgs. in which the true text has been
preserved by N without extant support, owing to the exceptional intrusion
of a late element into B (of which some examples occur further on in this
Gospel).”” But B is full of these intrusions and not only in Matthew!
Matt.
xi, 15. —axovew BD 32174604 ἃ ζ; syr sin (0 exwv wra [axovey | ἀκουέτω)
xiii. 9. —axovew NBL a 9 ff ἢ syr sin (0 ἐεχων wra [axovew] axoverw)
Here it is clearly seen that Β # and syr sin are the consistent ones
in omitting. It might be thought basically “ neutral’? (= shorter text)
bat that there would be no reason to add axovew as all the rest do
including copt.
xiii. 48. —axovesy N*B Sod” 604 a ὃ ὁ k vg" [non D ἃ syr sin 1]
xii. 48. τω AeyovTs (pro Tw εἰποντι) NBDZII* 7 33 892 Evst aligq.
Following ewrev to avoid tautology. See similar case at
Luke ix. 21. (Soden follows Hort here in Matthew.)
Other instances of this can be adduced, as at Matt. xxvi. 26. For
ευχαρίιστησας of most (and W 28) evroynoas is substituted by text recept
with NBDLCGZ min for the blessing of the bread. This appears
very like an effort to vary the ευχαρίστησας occurring again in the
following verse 27 of the cup. For note that in St. Paul’s account in
1 Cor. xi. 24/25 the expression is evyapiornoas and that of the BREAD.
24/25. ἔλαβεν aptov καὶ evyapiotnoas εκλασε Kat evtre (λαβετε
aryeTe) TOVTO μου ETL TO Twa TO ὑπερ ὑμων (KAwWpEVOY) TOUTO
TTOLELTE ELS THY ἐμὴν AVALVYNTLV. WTAVTWS καὶ TO TIOTNPEOV. oo
Thus ευὐχαριίστησας is tied to the bread, and woavrws implies evyapr-
στησας de novo as to the cup.
Whichever way we turn the NB grouping seems to be convicted of
an endeavour to improve; in this case however the textus receptus is
involved as well. Here Griesbach and Scholz I believe rightly oppose
it. For such repetition is not distasteful to the Semitic mind. (See
beyond on Matt. xix. 4.) But Soden reproduces ευχαριστησας in Matt.
Matt.
“ xiii. 86. διασαφησον (pro φρασο) N&*B (Orig semel) syr, but no
cursives. Sod adds ἃ and °° of uncials, of fam ¢* four cursives, and prints
διασαφησον in his text. Of the five next, four are omissions :
+ But syr sin has wasaxls for wrxsazsal of syr cu. Syr cu has axovewy both at
xi. 15 and xiii. 9.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 51
Matt.
ea 45. europa (pro avOpwrw eurropw) ὃξ ΒᾺ δὅ0 59 Sod Ath Cyr 1/2
Chrys Ambr [Habent Orig Cypr gr plur syrr diatess drab latt]
om εμπορω ug Miatess
The two words occupy one line in Ὁ ὦ, and Cyr 1/2 is significant,
while Orig and Cypr flatly contradict NB [Tevt is silent’.
The coptic is interesting, for unlike Gr-syr-lat order: ανθρ. εμπορω
they Say εμπόρω ἀνθρώπω a “ merchant-man’”’ as we would say in English.
Evi. 18, τινα (με) λεγουσιν ov ἀνθρωποι εἰναι (τον) νἱον του avov
quem (me) dicunt homines esse filium hominis.
This με is omitted by NB 604 Sod*” [no other Greeks] syr hier copt
aeth only ¢ of O.L. and some vgg codd (8) against Hier specifically.
με is included by syrr it pl and Iren and all other Greeks. Clearly this
omission is not “shorter” text, but constructional improvement. There
could not be a clearer case where the Syriacs are specific with the Latin,
and the Coptic only support NB as a distinctly Egyptian group joined
by aeth and ὁ also clearly of Egyptian provenance, yet Soden excludes.
[ X’s graeco-latin tendency is seen clearly in the neighbourhocd
xvi. 27 τὰ epya for τὴν mpakw with d [contra D® τὴν πραξιν] opera sua
and other Latins and copt.
No doubt the origin of the plural is due to an old unpointed syriac
preceding the Latins which could be read either way. Hence as Latins
and Greeks (except N*F minli4) divide squarely here, the Latins did
not get it from the Greeks but from the Syriac. ]
Matt.
xxi. 12. “καὶ εἰσηλθεν a ta εἰς TO Lepov του Geav.”
But NBL 13 33 73 604 892 Sodwia sah boh acth ὃ Meth Chr Hil and
Origen 2/5 omit του Geov. On the supposition of the “shorter” text
of course W-H follow suit with the omission. But is it not a gross
mistake? Who would put in του θεου ‘And Jesus went into the
Temple” is quite sufficient. If the original writer did not have τοὺ θεου
why should any add? The plain fact remains that Origen being on both
sides gives away the change as an arbitrary excision, for the words
appeared redundant. I cannot allow that the addition was made by
scribes, but claim that NBL omitted as a redundancy. This is one of
the few places treated by W-H. See their note in vol. ii. (‘ Select Read-
ings’) p.15. What they mean by ‘“‘overwhelming’”’t evidence for omission
I fail to see, “overwhelming” meaning only three uncials (closely
related), a pitiful handful of cursives, the arm (all mss?) aeth, and coptic,
{ They write: ‘The absence of του deov from Me xi. 15 Le xix. 45 (ef Jo. ii. 14) at
all events cannot weigh against the overwhelming documentary authority for omission.”
But the omission is doubtless traceable to Origen, who in his commentary on John
(Book x. ὃ 15) cites the three Gospel accounts, leaving out του θεου in Matthew, as in
Mark and Luke where the words are really absent. Elsewhere when quoting Matthew
Origen has them. Soden holds του θεου against NBL and his ”, although he has been
religiously following them in a host of other things! Why are they right elsewhere if
wrong here?
EB 2
52 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
with Origen against them in proportion of 3 to 5 on the side of all other
Gk documents and all Latins but b, and all syrr, while syr cu actually
doubles it, reading “‘ And Jesus entered the temple of God and put forth
from the temple of God.”
The calling of NBL copt aeth “ overwhelming” is undignified. It
represents one single tradition. See under ‘‘Coptic” for probable
harmonistic reasons for the omission. Soden does not omit.
ai 6. περι Tov tpayndov (pro emt or εἰς Tov Tp.) NBLZTNM 28 157
237 253 258 y** al. pauc. Orig (SEMEL) Bas Cyr bis
This clearly tells the tale. Orig only once, Cyril twice. The Latins
oppose and the Syriac, but NB thought “about his neck’? was better.
Why are 604 and 892 absent? The coptic does not agree with NB here.
Schaaf and Gwilliam translate ‘‘ad collum” for the same sy7 expression.
Only Burkitt says ‘about his neck ’’ for the same syr preposition. It is
clearly only a matter of taste, and in view of the circumlocutory nature
of syriac prepositions (Schaaf p. 114 “circum, circa, ad, juxta, prope”’) it
seems evident that NB are only “improving.” How could περὶ have
dropped out of the rest if basic? Soden refuses this “ nicety.”
xvill. 15. cav δὲ apaptnon (--εἰς oe) 0 adeAghos cov This is a radical
and important change committed by NB 1 22 234* sah Orig
Cyr Bas?ries and clearly wrong. When D parts company
with NB and goes with the mass and when that mass includes
all the Latins and Syrr we may be sure NB with or without
Origen are striving for improvement. We cannot consider
a shorter text per se. We must investigate how each of these
changes came about. Boh?! here oppose sah with arm aeth Chr
Lucif Hil ete. who are all conjoined with 922, of the Greeks
plus Lat and Syr. We does not omit nor 604 nor 892.
(A reference to Luke xvii. 3 where NB Sod again omit with AL
fam 1 42 254 892 but also lat syr copt Clem Dam (Tert) shows that
the omission in Matt. was probably influenced by their Lucan text.)
This is immediately followed by an addition which I do not believe
is original but due to the “‘ version tradition.”
Matt. xvii. 19 for ὑμων of most Gks NBDL 892 substitute εξ ὑμων
with syrr [this seems to be opposed by a much older authority namely
Ignatius®rhes 4),
aviv 4, 0 κτισᾶς am ἀρχῆς apoev Kat θηλυ ἐποίησεν avTovs. B 1 22
80 88 124 604 Sod 118 & Sod*** boh sah Orig”* Tit Bostr Method
r Ath Clem’™ use xticas for the more Semitic ποίησας of all
the rest.
I ask what can be more clearly an endeavour to improve? It avoids
the tautology involved and seems clearly borrowed from Mark x. 6 “ azro
Se apyns κτίσεως ἄρσεν Kat Ondv erroincer avTous.”
The double use of ποίεω in Matthew is not abhorrent to the Latins,
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 53
and the Syriacs use the same word ama twice. Nor was it abhorrent
to the translators of the L:XX, who render Gen. i. 27:
καὶ ETTOLNTEV O Geos TOV ἄνθρωπον "Καὶ εἰκόνα Geov ἐποίησεν αὐτον"
ἄρσεν καὶ θηλυ εἐποιήσεν avtTous.
(Hebrew is yivra X22" bara N73 bara x73.)
In the small support accorded to B note that 124 opposes the
family traditions of fam 13 which do not agree, and 1 opposes 118-209.
Nothing can be clearer that κτίσας is editorial.
Similarly in the same chapter verse 18 B 13-124-346-556 write edn
for evrev opposing all the rest and 69. Can we really suppose the later
edn to be “neutral” opposing all other documents ?
Note that in the answer of the young man at Mark x. 20 the record
of NB(C)A is edn, and returning to Matt. xix. 18 note that at the
beginning instead of λέγει avtw ποίας, NL substitute ποίας φησιν, and
B 18 εφη avrw ποίας, all apparently in the nature of corrections, yet not
in agreement with each other.
Two verses lower Matt. xix. 20 we find Origen (as well as a.
opposing the correction of NBD 1 22 604 of εφυλαξα for εφυλαξαμηι
while εφυλαξα is read in Mark x. 20 by Orig Clem DA and 28 [not 28 in
Matthew] and there in Mark opposed by NBCNWX. In Luke xviii. 21
most read εφυλαξαμὴην but NABL fam 1 εφυλαξα. It would seem as if
in both Matthew and Mark NB take the wrong line.
xxiv. 16. φευγετωσαν εἰς ta opn BDA 892 min alig Patr et latt for
ob. emt ta opy. It is much more likely that ev: should
be changed ἴο. εἰς, than es to emt, The idea being in the
minds of the grammarians that it was a flight To (‘‘in
montes ἡ Orig Trent Cypr Aug Hier r vgg) although
most Old Latins retain the abl. in montibus (with only vg’),
whereas emt ta opy is the more difficult and the most likely,
signifying flight to the mountains and upon them when there.
As to Luke xxi. 21 all Gks (but two) have es there. Hence
the excuse to harmonise in Matthew is greedily availed of by B.
I can see no other outlet. I will not admit that nearly all other
Greeks substitute a more difficult em: in Matthew.
Inwprovement (Addition).
ne 44 fin. Tov avtov λόγον evmwv +7radiv. This παλιν is added by
NBL Sod” 124 (against the family) t ὦ and b0h [non sah.
There is no particular reason for this (syr sin ‘‘and again
thus he spake”’; arm ‘‘and again the same word he said”’) unless
erroneously incorporated from the παᾶλὲν occurring above
“παλιν are lov mpoonvéato,” for “Tov αὐτὸν λόγον εὐπὼν 18
quite sufficient. Here is an absolute contradiction of the
t Soden misquotes his «257 (Scrivener ‘a’ Adv. Sacer.)
54 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
“shorter” text theory, and an abominable redundancy. No
cursives but 124 seem to join, and as to ὦ it occasionally
does this kind of thing, e.g. John iii. 4 homo +wut nos.t Soden
places this second παλιν in his text.
Given the ordinary copying of mss, which was faithful enough
in the main, how could wadw be dropped by ail the rest?
Removing redundancy.
Matt.
x1. 25. ort εκρυψας ταῦτα aro σοφων καὶ cuverov NBD 12
Clem’™ (sed Clemb™ libere) Sod*xt non uss
All others have απεέκρυψας. «απο with Iren®* Eus Orig.
This seems clearly to savour of the removal of redundant am from
the verb. Alone it might not seem so, but in connection with the other
points in the indictment it would seem to hold good.
(The Latins can yield nothing of interest here; sah seems to
faxour NBD “thou hiddest these for,” but boh is “from.” Coming
close on syriac influence in verse 23 (see elsewhere) εκρυψας
ay trace to this.)
See in St. Luke as to simple and compound verbs.
Further, consider the following improvement :
vi. 5. καὶ οταν προσευχησθε ove ἐσεσθε ws ov υποκριταί Nt BZ 1 22
372 892 Sod” a ὃ (ὁ h nolite esse) f fi g2 ὃ [contra At]
l vg goth sah boh aeth syr hier arm Orig Chr Aug
Sodtxt
καὶ οταν προσευχὴ οὐκ Eon woTrEp οὐ ὑποκριταὶ DW rell syr
cud k ᾳ [om ver. sin] diatess (hiant e ff, mr 12)
{ In this connection it may be interesting to connect @ with Ber, which can be done
in several places. But they touch in quite a peculiar matter of order, which deserves
notice, at Luke viii. 23. For
kat κατεβὴ λαίλαψ avepov ets τὴν λιμνην Οὗ all Gks
| et descendit procella venti in stagnum of Latins
B alone has κ, κατεβη λαίλαψ ets τὴν λιμνην avepov
and ὦ et descenditturbo in stagnum venti }
Wordsworth does not notice this order in a, although quoting G ὃ e1 q for omission of
in stagnum (add for omission # as in Tisch confirmed by Buchanan). The point I want
to bring out is that B is therefore in no way “ neutral” or “pre-syrian”’ here. He goes
with a document generally called Western or Huropean or Italian (although a is really
graeco-syriac-latin) and does so in a place where the omission by other Latins shows
how the change of order probably took place owing to some confusion here. Hence
Bain combination once more disproves “ neutrality” for B and classes him with our
other documents as a mixture. I will emphasise the point further from a passage very
close by, viz. Luke viii. 29. Instead of nAavyero uo του δαιμονιου εἰς τας ἐρημους, B supported
only by = (against δὲ and all the rest) allows himself to substitute amo for uo, which must
equate LATIN use of ὦ daemonio for agency as sometimes elsewhere.
t ΝΡ leaves out οὐκ ἐσεσθε by mistake. # in correcting gives καὶ οταν προσευχή
οὐκ eve Oe (showing he knew both readings) and N¢ has to set the matter straight.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 55
This is absolutely and clearly an improvement by a small coterie
as above. In verse 8 it runs cov Se ποίοντος εἐλεημοσυνὴν so that at first
sight we might think that the majority had corrected the plural in
ver. § to accord with this singular in ver. 3, but why then, in the first
place, allow the plural οὐ υποκριται to stand in ver. 5? If Antioch had
done the revising here they might have changed the hypocrites to
‘a hypocrite” or ‘‘the hypocrite,” but then they would have had to
alter the whole of the rest of the verse. In the second place it is
quite clear that NBZ did the revising (the inevitable Origen joins
them) in order to avoid a singular comparison with a plural following.
In the third place the change is opposed by DW dk ἵ gq and syr cu pesh
diatess definitely [sin, the cautious, omits the verse). For some reason
Tisch misstates the evidence, only giving qg on the side of D ὦ, while he
gives «! on the other side. But if ever there was a place where we
must balance correctly this is one. We now see that id?! is wrong, for dk q
witness for the side of Ὁ ὦ, and δ opposing A&®™ shows it was the later
latin witness which caused this. Sod cannot even produce δ᾽ for this.
One word more. Origen, who approves the course of NBZ,
nevertheless writes wa7ep for ws (Of NBDZ 88), showing that while
they were about it NBZ took the opportunity to make this other change,
for they prefer ὡς to ὧσπερ on a good many other occasions.
We might refer to Luke xxii. 31/82 for further illustration: Σίμων
Σέμων ἰδοὺ ὁ σατανᾶς ἐξητήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον" ἐγὼ δὲ
ἐδεήθην περὶ σου ἵνα μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἡ πίστις σου.
Here c seeing the difficulty writes ad cernendum without ὑμᾶς, but
Tertullian “uti cerneret vos,” and Cyprian “ wt vos veraret.”
Another such transition (which Bornemann admits is “ intentional ’’)
occurs at Luke v. 4 and is highly instructive, for again another Evangelist
is reproducing our Lord’s own words: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν εἶπεν πρὸς
τὸν Σίμωνα: ἐπανάγαγε eis τὸ βάθος, καὶ χαλάσατε τὰ δίκτνα ὑμῶν
εἰς ἄγραν. We cover this transition in English by saying ‘‘ Launch out
[‘ put out,’ R.V.] into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught,” but
the Latins cannot cover it, and they say “‘ Duc (ov adduc) in altum, et
laxate....”t
St. Paul is not averse to the method. Observe 2 Cor. xi. 6 “ εἰ δὲ
καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, GAN οὐ TH γνώσει" ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ φατϊερωθέντες (or
φανερώσαντες) ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς. This is not quite so obvious, as ἐγὼ
+ Horner simply follows Tischendorf and only quotes 4, so that he has failed to
clear the matter. ἃ has “‘et cum adoras non ertt sicut hypocritae.” Unfortunately
e J ave wanting and m rr, If we refuse dk syr cw (conjoined here) a heavy vote
in the proceedings what is the use of talking of them elsewhere as primary witnesses ?
The public cannot judge intelligently when the evidence of these witnesses is obliterated
from carelessness.
+ Wiclif is however true, and says “ Lede thow into depthe, and slake your nettis to
take fisch.”
56 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
with infinite reserve (as is usual with St. Paul) is suppressed. In our
English version on the other hand we have to bring it into pro-
minence: “But though I be rude in speech yet not in knowledge
{emphatically R.V. ‘yet am I not in knowledge’] but we have been
thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.” (R.V. varies this
diction.)
Another beautiful example is forthcoming in St. Paul’s writings,
which although a little long Iam tempted to reproduce here and put
it on record in this connection. I refer to Rom. xii. 16-20.
Ver 16 is plural : τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες " μὴ TA ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες,
ἀλλὰ τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόμενοι" μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς.
Follows a kind of singular idea holding the plural :
Ver 17, 18, 19. μηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ drodiovres* προνοούμενοι καλὰ
ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων" εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν, μετὰ πάντων
ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες " μὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντες, ἀγαπητοί, ἀλλὰ
δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ (γέγραπται γὰρ “’Eyol ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ
ἀνταποδώσω, Neyer κύριος.
Now follows immediately the singular, only separated by the
parenthetical quotation above :
Ver 20. Ἐὰν οὖν (vel ἀλλὰ ἐὰν) πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός cov, ψώμιξε αὐτόν"
ἐὰν διψᾷ, πότιξε αὐτὸν" τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν, ἄνθρακας πυρὸς
σωρεύσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ.
The interesting part is that he holds this singular in ver. 21 instead
of summing up with the plural :
μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ, ἀλλὰ νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν.
This again is lost in our English, for we translate :
“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good,”
which might be “ Be thou... ” or ‘‘ Be ye...”
Now io return to Matt. vi. 5 and Luke v. 4. Of course there are
no cross references between these two verses, yet it is instructive to note
ἃ point which occars here. There are no variations among MSS in
Luke v. 4 except as to ws δὲ or ore (Ὁ da 6) at the beginning, but at the
end fam 1 and 22 Sod’ omit εἰς aypav. Now these (fam 1 and 22 Sod1"*)
are the very Mss which alone support NBZ in Matt. vi.5. I may say here
that we are very much in need of a new collation of Evan 22. We do not
know, to this day, whether “colb”’ or ‘‘colb unus”’ of Wetstein’s Colbert
Group means 22 or another. Consult Matt. vi. 18 a very little way
farther on, κρυφαίω (for xpurtw) bis is found only in NB(D) 1 [against
118-209 this time] and 22 372 Sod’, showing they are simply descendants
of the same family. [872 (= Sod) joins here, absolutely of B family, not
recorded above.}] Sodéen** κρυφαιω.
κρυφαιος is more classical (or poetic, Pindar Aesch Soph ; Xen Plato
use both) than κρυπτω, but only occurs in the N.T. as κρυφὴ Eph. v. 12.
But, I may be told, do you mean to put aside NBZ Orig supported
by sah boh goth it® Aug? And I say yes, because before the benevolent
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 57
reader will have finished perusing these pages he will find that NBZ
Orig sah boh represent but one text recension, and ἐξ Awg no doubt are
turning a difficulty ¢ as well, seeing that they are not supported by ὦ ἃ
(unfortunately “5 is wanting here in the early part of Matthew).
Adhesion of the gothic here to NBZ is unusual and might be
considered a balancing factor, but for the fact that it is abandoning its
usual adherence to the other group, and therefore I consider its position
to be suspicious also of “improvement.” As we find the syriac stand
aloof from NBZ with ὦ k D and all other Greeks we can see pretty
clearly that the singular in apposition to the plural following is the
correct reading and not the converse.
As a matter of fact we ourselves are in the habit of using the
same construction. We say currently ‘‘ Don’t be like the sharks down
in the market place’ (meaning ‘‘Do not thou be like...”) Similarly
the French say: “Ne sois pas comme les Anglais qui...’”’ or the
Germans: “ Sei nicht wie die Amerikaner...” t
Finally observe in the same chapter vi. 16 αφανιζουσιν yap το
mpoowroy S 2449, k sy pesh pers for apavifovcw yap ta προσωπα.
Note also in Matt. vii. 16 pnts συλλεγουσιν aro axavOwv σταφυλὴν
CEGKLMSUVWXATI al. pl arm aeth Lucif (although opposed by NB(C)
Jam 1 22 892 latt syr goth copt with σταφυλας) may be the right reading ;
observe LWX for σταφυλὴν and Clem (but cf. Luke vi. 44).
Inyprovement (continued).
Matt.
vi. 8. Addition: 0 θεος o πατὴρ υμων N&*B sah [| W-H] non Sodzee x88
ο πατὴρ ὑμων D reli et verss sine o θεος
vil. 8. avoeyeras (pro ανοιγησεται fin) Bonly (and syr cu boh Aphraat).
Clear ‘‘improvement’’ to correspond with AapSave and
cupicxer above, against Clem δὲ and all other Greeks, Latins
and sah. B does it again (alone with Ὁ, which is here
wanting) at Luke xi. 10 absolutely for the same reason. Sod
attributes both readings to mere error (p. 908 Band I Abt. 11).
He is indeed charitable. But W-H do not agree with him,
printing them marg. in both places.
ix, 28, Order: ore tovro durayat ποίησαι only Bl gq and vg against ore
δυναμαν in first position all others and versions (although
varying somewhat otherwise ; see under NB in Part IT).
x. 2. +xat ante taxwBos NB d (contra D*) syr (contra rell gr et latt
sah boh aeth). When &B abandon coptic sympathy there is
always a reason, and this must have been considered an im-
provement. Why should all the rest drop it? (+«as Sod!?*),
{ They are clearly wrong with B again in vi. 22 reading, “The light of the body is
thine eye”’ (from Luke xi. 34) instead of ‘the eye.” N here opposes B, and with f goth
syrr sahomn bohomu and Clem Hus is certainly right.
t See Winer, p. 778 (* Breviloquence,’ section 2 f.) comparing Kenophon (Cyr. 5,
1. 8) ὁμοιαν ταῖς δουλαις εἰχε τὴν εσθητα. AS to Luke v. 4 it 15 referred to on Ὁ. 725.
58 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt
“x. 8. θαδδαιος (pro λεβαιος) NB 17 124 sah bohec ffi gal [Non clare Sod]
13. ef ὑμας (pro προς vyuas) NBW 174 (248) 372 892 βοᾶν τς,
This is done to complete the idea of “pairs” in the sentence
εἰρηνη ὑμων em’ auTny, and εἰρηνη ὑμων ed’ vas επιστραφητω,
if indeed it be not borrowed from Luke x. 6 em’ avtov..ed’
vpas. Actually 243, instead of strengthening NB, shows this
by adding ανακαμψει from Luke. There is no earthly reason
why all other documents should substitute προς for ed’ if ef’
were original. The Latins oppose and both coptics differen-
tiate. Needless to say W-H fall into the trap. Soden does not.
I wish to add that δὲ (with C 157 Sod*° only) confirms my view
as to “pairs” immediately afterwards, for at x. 15, not content with yy
σοδομων καὶ γομορρων, it adds a second yn, writing yn codopev καὶ yn
youoppwv. That this is absolutely gratuitous is proved by the abstention
of the friendly versions.
We shall see much more later and throughout the Gospels as to
this matter of ‘ pairs”’ by the Egyptian school.
Improvement (Order).
xi. (26. ors ουτως Sevdoxia eyeveto ἐμπροσθεν cov NBW 1 33 892 Καὶ
OTL οὕτως >eyeveTo εὐδοκία ἐμππροσθεν cov Rell
The versions do not support NB here. In Lukex. 21 BC*LX& (a
perfect family coterie, but against δὲ as well as the rest) have also εὐδοκία
eyevero and there with many Old Latins.
Improvement ‘‘ Niceties.”
xi. 29. πραυς NBC*D Sod*™ Clem 1/2 Orig bis Ath 1/2 Bas 1/4 Cyr 1/2
πρᾶος ell omn et min omn vid Origr? Hus*e?? Ath 1/2
Bas 3/4 Cyr 1/2 Chr; et Clem(Strom) λαβετε τον mpaov
A glance at this will, I think, show Alexandrine scholarship
preferring the rarer form. Observe how the Fathers are divided against
themselves, with the balance in favour of zpaos. Hort says (voli. p. 549)
“ The perpetuation of the purer text may in great measure be laid to the
credit of the watchful scholars of Alexandria, .. .”’ but here, as elsewhere,
the readings vary in different places in their writings. They were far
from being “‘ watchful,” but they did enjoy “niceties” even if not
consistent in the application of them.
ix. 13 and xii. 7. Under this head may perhaps he placed ἐλεος (for
ἔλεον) by NBCD* 1 33 in both places (and again xxiii. 23).
Note that all others oppose as well as ὦ and Clem** (against
Origen). The LXX reading (of most of its mss) of ἔλεος
would account for ἔλεος.
For observe in this connection, and in this vicinity, Matt xii. 17/18
wa πληρωθη τὸ ρηθεν δια Ἡσαιοι (xlii. 1/4) τον προφητου Aeyovtos wWov o
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 59
παῖς μου ον NPETLOG, O αγαπητος μου ov (pro εἰς ov) evdoxncev ἡ ψύχη μου.
So N*B 115 244 892 ff, Hus>is 1/2 against εἰς ov εὐδοκησεν of all the rest
and latt sy copt. A reference to Isaiah xlii. 1 (Septuagint) shows ἐσραηλ
ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς μου, προσεδεξατο avToV ἡ ψυχὴ μου.
[D* indeed here writes εἰς ov for the first ov (as syr) against quem of
d opposite, and D*" has ev w for the second ets ov. |
Matt.
᾿ (Questionable.)
xi. 29. apraca: (pro διαρπασα)ὶὺ BC*WX 892 min” sah? against
διαρπασαι ND rell omn et latt (diripere) et Mare iii. 27
“ Nicety”’:
ΧΙ]. 82. (sec loco) ov μὴ αφεθὴ Bs" et W-H mg.
ov μη αφεθησεται N*
ove αφεθησεται Net yell omn
This seems a strengthening “nicety”” on the part of B, for
Luke xii. 10 = οὐκ αφεθησεται, and Mark iii, 29 οὐκ exes αφεσιν.
Another ‘‘ nicety ’’ (favoured by W-H and Sod tat** 950 *) occurs at:
xiii. 48. ta καλα εἰς aryyn (pro τα Kanda εἰς ἀγγεία) NBCM**N 1 [non 118-
209] 124 [non fam] 892 Evst 48 (notable conjunction among
our minuscules of editorial work) Orig® Cyris Istd. ἀγγειον
is a pure Matthaean word occurring only here and at xxv. 4
where ev τοῖς ἀγγειοίς is left alone by all. I consider ayyn, the
non-diminutive form, to be a ‘‘nicety’’ of Origen. The Old
Syriac omits here at xiii. 48 saying “ the good (as) good,” but
DW and the rest have εἰς ayyera (or εἰς Ta αγγια Ὁ).
57. The “pair”? of clauses here: “in his country and in his
house” has given rise to a great deal of variety.
I believe the “‘ received” text to be correct: ev Ty πατριδι αὐτου Kat
ev τὴ οἰκία avtov. It is read by eleven uncials and LXW®> min pl latt
pl syrr Bas Chr and Orig 2/3, and is Semitic. BD 88 604 (al? perpauc)
adk = εν τὴ πατριδι (-- αὐτου) καὶ ev τὴ οἰκία αὐτου making the possessive
serve once for the two as W-H. This Origen does not agree to. NZ fam
13 892 ff Orig 1/8 = ev τη δια πατριδι καὶ ev TH οἰκια αὐτου as Sod'**,
L fg. vg” omit the second clause, but L with 15 uncials including W
has ev ty watpids αὐτου. C conflates ev τῇ ἐδέία πατριδὶ αὐτοῦ Kat εν TH
οἰκια αὐτοῦ exactly as sah (which probably gave rise to some of the
trouble) neq fare Merit Reo...
We see Origen as usual divided against himself, yet not supporting
BD for the “‘ shorter” text, which here I believe to be a mistake by BD.
A study of such “ pairs”’ conveys a gcod deal of information. Thus
at Guke xx. 20: To “deliver him unto the power and authority of the
Governor.” δὲ 157 Paris” and three lectionaries write ty apyn καὶ
εξουσια του ἡγεμ., eliding the second article before εξουσια. I mention it
because Tisch omits this in his notes (it is added in Gregory’s ‘Emendanda’)
and because the Coptic πε. for καὶ (although it retains the article
60 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
prefixed to the second noun) may have given rise to this. ‘‘ Pairs,’
therefore, are always worth watching.{ Sod has no new support for δὲ.
wey. 88. NBC?T° 1 22 892* min” ffi copt aeth (Orig?) Did omit edOorres.
This is peculiarly interesting, for although 1 omits, 118-209
with 28 substitute ovres. The very manner of the coptics
shows that they had well considered the place, and they too
make a great show of ovres. The rest and DW all have
ἔλθοντες, which represents a far more graceful act, and syr cu
sim: “came near and.” The point is this. In ver. 82 we read
καὶ avaBavrov (εμβαντων) αὑτων εἰς TO TAOLOV εκοπασεν ο ἄνεμος.
They had already entered the ship, and for some reason
ἔλθοντες seemed out of place in ver. 33. It is true it does not
read (as Tischendorf would have one suppose) oz δὲ ἔλθοντες ev
τω πλοιω..., but ov δὲ ev Tw πλοίω ἔλθοντες πρροσεκυνησαν aT.
But ἔλθοντες has been removed and not added, I feel sure.
Another “ nicety ” obtains in the following verse:
xiv. 84. ηλθον ems τὴν γην NBCD*NT°WASOM t fam 18 88 157 238
245 Sod™™ e “ad terram” (sah ep,par elnKap, boh
eon eElNKS 9,1) syr, et syr cu sin diserte
ἥλθον evs τὴν γην HE rell omn latt “in” et ἃ Orig** et Sod txt
This is a distinction and a ““ betterment.” d opposes D and Origen
is against the NB group, whose adherents are none too many. I consider
e to be wrongly grouped by Tisch and Horner and to belong to the side
I have put it on.
[ A touch suggested by Origen in xiv. 36 is rejected by NB, but not
by some of their followers. He would have (bis) wa καν povov ἀψωνται
with ® 1 [non 118-209] fam 18 [non 124] 22 88 al. alig. All the uncials
have wa povov ἁψωνται. The vg and some itala (but not de “ αὐ tantum’’)
have “ut vel fimbriam...” and f “ut tantum vel fimbriam.” |
KV. 35/36. καὶ παραγγείλας. . «ἔλαβεν NBD 1 fam 18 33 W-H Sod
(Orig evOade δε ov κέλευει adda παραγγέλλει)
και εκέλευσε. . «καὶ λαβων Rell Gr fl gq vg
AQMAPATTEIAE ae-.-aqxr sah
οὐορ, AYEongent.-.AqO1 bok
καὶ εκέλευσε. . «καὶ ἔλαβεν syrabceg, k (et praecepit
et accepit)
et cum jussisset. .accepit ad
First observe that Origen directs this operation on the part of
+ We may cite another instructive instance where N and not B is offended at a
“pair” of readings and cancels the second. It is all in the same neighbourhood (see
xiii, 28, under Coptic). This occurs at Matt. xii. 37. N alone prefers ex yap τῶν λογων
σου δικαιωθησὴ Kat εκ τῶν oywr (-- σου) καταδικασθηση. Soden does not add one single
new witness.
Ἷ Soden refuses ex: (upon what principle ?) against all his + family and nine new
witnesses.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 61
NBD*. The comparison is with xiv. 19 where NZ Orig had exedevoev
(against κέλευσας of most, κέλευσατε B* Sod), Observe sah uses a
different word here from the one in xiv. 19, transliterating in xv. 35 but
not using the participle. d does not agree with the exact participial form
of D, nor do any Latins, nor is it borne out by syr. As in 36 inet. Syrr
and latt (except d) maintain the καὶ ἔλαβεν of the Greeks, it looks very
much (whether καὶ παρηγγεῖλε be correct or not), as if NB had inverted
the construction and that καὶ παρηγγεῖλε (or παρηγγείλε Se ag sah)...
λαβὼν or και λαβων was what was intended, and not καὶ παραγγείλας...
ἔλαβεν. For the question is as between ‘‘ Commanding the multitude
to sit down...he took the seven loaves...” or “‘And he commanded
the multitude to sit down...and taking...”
Follows another case of probable “‘ finessing”’ :
Matt.
xvi. 19, tas κλειδας (pro Tas κλεις) N*B* (both corrected) LW Sod?
Orig 4/5 against tas κλεὶς by all others and N°B° Orig 1/5
Eus Chr Phot. Doubtless Origen caused this.
xvii. 4. ποιησω (p70 ποιησωμε) NBC* 174 604 ὃ ff, fe. This is
different. Because, 88 ποιήσωμεν obtains in Mark and Luke
(ix. 5, ix. 83), it might be thought that this ποίησω was the
“ neutral” text in Matthew. I think it is a mistake however,
as both coptics are against it, as all the syriacs and Origen
distinctly. This is a place where we may emphasise the
importance of a concurrent study of the versions.
They are so often with us in whole or in part, that their absence
here is very important. How come ὦ and ffi. of the Latins to join?
In the first place faciam occupies the last place in the short line of 6 and
a ligature for us may easily have disappeared or been omitted in copying
ὃ or the parents of ὃ fi2. As to the parallels, D only indulges in ποίησω
in Luke (ὦ facio), but in Mark D d for ποιήσω and faciam are joined
by no Greeks but by ὦ ὁ ff2, all Latin support therefore. The point is
perhaps not worth debating, but I incline to think it is an ancient Latin
error which has crept into the three places. It is very curious that D,
who perpetrates ποιήσω alone among Greeks in Mark and Luke, should
be absent from NBC in Matthew. But the other versions are check
enough, without speaking of the absence of 892 and others.
A little matter of order follows however in the verse which is highly
instructive. B and ὁ alone write σκηνὰς τρεῖς for τρεῖς oxnvas of all the
rest and the versions, incl. Latin. But in Luke this is the order
(and of some in Mark). H7rgo, B was looking at a parallel, and that
parallel probably Luke ix. 33, and his conjunction with e in Matt.
shows a Latin sympathy which may have extended to and account for
ποιήσω as well.
xvii. 7. καὶ ἁψάμενος αὐτῶν for καὶ mato αὐτων kat SB 892 only.
Anyone who will consult the beginning of this verse with its
62 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES,
Matt.
; three verbs will see that there is an opening for finessing;
NB avail of it; so does sah, and so do some Latins in
other respects. But I expect boh or syr is nearest the truth.
Soden follows NB 892 with %°. See his note.
xvii. 15. κακως exer (pro κακως πασχεὺ NBLZ42M Sod cum Orig
Chr, This is against the versions as well as the remaining
Greeks. Soden refuses eye. Cf Marc ix.17 eyovta ria αἀλαλον.
20. ολυγοπιστιαν. .« .peraBa...evOev...for amiotiay...peraBnd. ..
evrevOev may be considered, as the variations are so numerous.
See the evidence.
xvili. 7. avaynn yap (—eotw) BUNTON) Sod” 1 33 al. pauc. This
seers to be an “improvement” (cf Hebr ix. 16 23 etc) and is
not witnessed to by ὃὲ reli nor the Latins. In the Gospels we
can only compare with Luke xiv. 18 exw ἀνάγκην, and xxi. 23
ἐσται yap avayxyn, where all are agreed (+Luke xxiii. 17
ἀνάγκην δὲ εἰχεν). ΒΤ, are opposed here in Matt. by Origen.
8. Here is another question of “pairs.” ‘‘If thy hand or thy
foot offend thee cut them off.” This plaral offends our super-
sensitive Alexandrian ear, so αὐτὸν is substituted for αὐτὰ by
NBDL 1 fam 13 157 243 245 Sod™”° with latt sah [contra boh]
syr arm aeth Lucif Hil, and αὐτὴν Ὁ 28. I prefer the harder
and less smooth reading avra with EFGHKMSVWXTAIIS®
min pl and boh. Observe X deserts the Latins here and W is
against NBDL. W-H and Sod follow Alexandria. (Syr cu sin
εκκοψον (—avrov) καὶ Bade avrov amo σου) Cf Mare ix.
43/45/47 where erp, πους, and οφθαλμος are treated separately.
Note NB are running with the Latin in this verse. We have the
Latin order κυλλὸν ἡ ywodrov by NB 157 δ᾽ against D and all the rest
and sah boh syr arm aeth Orig for χωλον ἡ κυλλον, Also αὐτὸν for avra.
xviii. 14. ἐν (pro els) NBDLM™*NSM 82 157 892 al® ὁ" vg"
As regards the two Latins, wnus being occasionally abbreviated
might have led to unum. As regards these few Greeks it is plainly
an accommodation to and antithesis of αὐτὸ in verse 13 of the lost sheep,
and a reference to the earlier verses 4/6. There would be no reason to
change é to εἷς, but some reason to change εἷς to & Hence I charge
another “nicety” to NB. This time Origen opposes them with fifteen
or sixteen uncials and all the other Latins.
xviii. 25. Another question of “ pairs.” ...mpaOnvat καὶ τὴν γυναίκα καὶ
τα tecva So NB 1 [non fam] 258 604 Soda *t only, against
πραθ. καὶ τὴν γυναίκα αὐτου Kat Ta Texva Of all the rest, and
of John Damascene; the syr and coptic versions add the
possessive to both γυναίκα and τέκνα, so it surely belongs in one
place. The Latins (except h 72) are with the mass of Greeks for
“et uxorem ejus et filios ; only vg® adds ejus after filios in line
with its syriac stem, and ἢ 7, transfer from uxorem to filios.
Matt.
BIN 51, MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 63
xviii. 31. ovy (pro 82) Only NBD 21 33 ὦ ὁ W-H, non Sod.
All others including boh sah latt have δε, except aeth (cas as usual)
and 7, arm which omit.
The exigencies of the situation are well illustrated by Horner, who
translates the ὑοῦ ~ae by: “So his fellow servants...” Burkitt syr:
“ Now when his fellow servants.”
xx. 21. Yet another question of “pairs.” From eis εκ δεξιων cov
ΧΧΙ.
84.
καὶ εἷς εξ εὐωνυμων cov NB Dam wish to drop the first
cov, against all others, including coptic and the versions.
Soden cannot produce another ms. A reference to the parallel
at Mark x. 87 shows cov occupying there the foremost place:
εἷς cou εκ δεξιων Kas εἷς σου εξ εὐωνυμων (vel ἀριστερων). There
BDWAS (but not &) with 1 2°¢ Sod" be d fo σιαὺ k g omit the
second cov. (D and some Latins omit the second cov in Matt.)
ομματων for οφθάλμω B with DLZ fam 13 892 only and
Orig 1/2 against δὲ and the rest. oupa is much more classical
than of@adpos in the connection in which the word is used
here ; it occurs but once in N.T. at Mark viii. 23. (B varies
the order alone here, placing the possessive first with coptic.
Orig does this once but with οφθαάλμων, and his other quotation
places αὑτῶν after ομματων.) Sod ομματων txt without new Mss.
. Yet another question of “ pairs”:
emt ovov καὶ ems πῶλον NBUNZM1 [non fam] 124 [non fam]
Ὧν (Sod) 604 Sod "0 syx sah aeth; but om. ems sec. with CDW
and the mass, all latins boh dis. arm and Orig”® Cyr as LXX.
This seems to be a clear ‘‘ improvement” (against Origen).
We may be told that as the quotation of the mass agrees with
the LXX it is the mass which elided the second em. The
reply to this insinuation is contained in my other examples of
“pairs.” I will say no more except that Sod*** follows Hort.
Note. The LXX quotation (Zach. ix. 9) is ἐπὶ υποζυγιον καὶ
πῶλον veov, Origen cites five recensions [see quotation in
Tisch] where Aquila has em. ovov καὶ πῶλον viov ovadar,
Symmachus : ems ovov καὶ πτωλον wov ovados, Theodot : ems ovov
καὶ Twdov voy ovev. In no case does a second ev intrude.
In the face of this Westcott and Hort have the temerity (there
is no other word for it) to print the LXX quotation in capitals
following B: EnI ONON
KAI ΕΠῚ NWAON YION YNOZYFIOY
. The very next verse shows συνέταξεν (for προσεταξεν) borrowed
from Matt. xxvi. 19, xxvii, 10 by BCD 83 604 Sod™
Evst 48 against NW and all others and Orig'*" Huss, yet
actually incorporated by W-H into their text without marginal
alternative. The Latins differentiate with praeceptt in xxi. 6,
but constituit in xxvi. 19, xxvii. 10, yet the Revisers follow
64
Matt.
xxi, 18.
25.
CODEX B AND ITS AULIES.
Hort in both xxi. 5 and xxi. 6, and Souter gives us no foot-
note evidence. Note that d has praeceperat in xxi. 6 over
against ovverafev. The parallels in Mark and Luke express
the matter differently, so that BCD are merely harmonizing
Matthew’s language later, forgetting προσεταξεν formerly at
i. 24 and viii. 4. (συντασσω occurs only in the N.T. at
Matt. xxvi. 19, xxvii. 10.) Sod refuses συνεταξεν here in Matt.
But Hort says (vol. i. p. 556) ...‘‘ render it morally certain
that the ancestries of B and δὲ diverged from a point near the
autographs and never came into contact subsequently.”
Well then, either B or δὲ is right here. The whole matter
is thus confined to St. Matthew’s Gospel. For B we have
six witnesses, C and D® Evan 88 604 Sod™ and Hust 48, all
witnesses in such a case of rather peculiar character. For
SN we have about 2000 witnesses of every possible shade of
transmission, including W 892, plus the Latins—en bloc—
distinctly, plus Origen three times and Eusebius twice. Yet
Hort’s and the Revisers’ intuition tells them that Origen and
Eusebius are wrong to back &, and that B and six witnesses
kept pure from the common herd “at a point near the
autographs.” This is criticism gone mad. If δὲ and B
divided at a point “near the autographs and never came into
contact subsequently” then it is N here which holds the
balance of power by an overwhelming majority. There is
practical agreement that St. Matthew used προσεταξεν twice
previous to the passage in xxi. 6, and συνεταξεν twice sub-
sequently. The central and fifth passage is the one in dispute.
By all canons of Law and Logic we declare that N Origen
and Husebius here give the lie direct to BCD® Evan 33 604
and Sod Hust 48, Hort and the Revisers.
mpot (pro mpwas) N*BD x only (φῇ copt) W-H [non Sod]
This appears certainly a preference. If ‘‘ Antioch ” changed
πρωΐ to πρωίας here why did they not do it elsewhere ἢ
πρῶωιας is left alone at Matt. xxvii. 1 because it is mpwias δε
γενομενῆς, and δὲ γενομενῆς is probably conveyed by ellipse
here at xxi. 18. But NBD wish to be more precise, preferring
to emphasise another “nicety” of scholarship, and write
πρωι. Consult St. Mark, πρωὶ everywhere. Ipwws is
Matthaean and Johannine.
Almost another question of “pairs.” to βαπτισμα to Iwav(v)ov
NBCZ 22 88 372 Sod" [non 157] Evst 48 Orig against τὸ
βαπτισμα Iwavvov D rell omn Cyr. In Mark (xi. 30)
NABCDLA Sod 83 favour the second ro, in Luke (xx. 4)
NDLNR favour it. (Sod quotes 7 but N only extant.) In
Luke then B omits with the mass.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 65
Matt.
xxi. 46. Another probable “ nicety”’ of Orig. ewe: (pro ἐπειδὴ) (em) B
D(emz) Li fam 1 22 88 892 Orig’ Sod*" et tat. All the rest have
ἐπειδὴ (except ots Sod"), Now ἐπειδὴ is apparently not
Matthaean except here. Cf Matt. xviii. 32, xxvii. 6, where ἐπεὶ
is used. I do not care to emphasise this place for several
reasons, and I may be told that D strengthens the combination.
Yet observe two things, first that D is not wholly with it,
because D says ems ws while NBL 1 22 Orig*!#?/ say eres εἰς
against the mass, and secondly because both coptics have 2,09C
thus contradicting NBL here. Tisch refers to xxi. 26 and
xiv. 5 where ὡς remains unchanged. Further note that B 604
ALONE at xiv. 5 substitute eve: for ote there, almost clearly
accommodating to xxi. 46. This shows that B fully meant
eve, in the latter perhaps, but it also reveals consideration
of the parallels. Tisch adds “ Contra vero et. in Or duobus
locis (de sex) codex praebet ws pro ets.”
xxii. 10. This is a most important place. NB*L 892 Sod'* Cyr and
W-H (against Origen) and Soden text are for forcing St.
Matthew to use νυμῴφων here instead of γαμος, which latter is
used by DW and all other Greeks, Soden naming but one new
witness against it. Observe carefully that none of the critical
cursive codices join here except 892. It is certainly a false
reading, but how did it occur ?
First of all let us enquire where νυμῴφων is used in the N.T., and we
find it in Matt. ix. 15, Mark ii. 19, and Luke v. 34, and in every one of
these three cases it is used in alliterative antithesis to νυμφίος,
“un δυναται ot vios του νυμῴωνος πενθεῖν eh οσον μετ aUTWY ἐστιν O
νυμφιος." Matt.
“un δυνανταῖ οἱ υἱοὶ του νυμφωνος εν WO VULPIOS μετ αὐτῶν εστιν
vnotevey,” Mark.
un δυνασθε τους υἱους TOV νυμῴφωνος EV WO νυμῴιος μετ AUTOY εστιν
(ποιησαι) νηστευειν.᾽" Luke.
It is used nowhere else and never in the nominative. It is a rare
word anyhow; classically it is used by Pausanias, of the temple of
Bacchus, Ceres and Proserpine.
Again I ask how did the three Greeks NBL work this into their text, or
rather I should say, to be quite fair, how did they find it in their texts ?
The Latin texts give no assistance, for in accord with the language
they all turn καὶ ἐπλησθη o γαμος into the plural (even ὦ opposite De") et
repletae sunt nuptiae. The Latin then is hardly involved. But upon
consulting the Syriacs we find they say, not “‘ wedding-feast,” but ““ locus
convivii,” and this is also found in sah (and aeth) very definitely: ‘the
place of marriage,” πσίπαλδ. MuwereeT, against boh Hxenig,on
exactly the same word as used in xxii. 2, 3 for yapous.
I maintain then that this is one of the choicest places we can find
F
66 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
to investigate the matter of the influence of the versions on NBL and to
ascertain which versions. Here we can exclude Latin and Bohairic, and
we are left with syr and sah. It is quite certain that sah or syr is
responsible for this direct influence on NBL. It is beyond dispute
that o γαμος and not o νυμῴφων is the proper reading here. D is a clear
witness here for γάμος, with all other Greeks and Origen twice and Chrys.
I think it is criticism gone absolutely wild and mad to accept νυμῴφων
here, and it is unpardonable of Hort to put νυμῴων in his text without
any alternative in the margin and equally wrong of Soden. The
Revisers, to their credit be it said, eject it, but Souter will not give his
reasons (as he should) in a footnote. If Hort could have seen (as we can
now see) the original page of Codex B he would have observed that the
B?, who went over the whole text, carefully refrained from inking over
O NYM@WN (ὁ [dMOC stands in the margin by his hand or that of another
corrector). The Revisers by the restoration of γάμος now admit that
Hort was wrong. If νυμφων then be not basic and “ neutral,” my point is
absolutely proved that the versions produced it and influenced NBL. If
νυμῴων be not “the true text,” then I have won my point all along the
line, and the other matters treated of here fall into the regular category of
‘“‘ Improvements,” for the same influences bear directly on these matters.
I hope in future, when we observe in other places that not a single
sympathising cursive stands with δὲ or B or L or NBL, that we shall
make it a canon of criticism to exclude their mal-editing of the text.
[Note, as to absence of minuscule support here, a place like xxii. 25,
where γήμας (for γαμησας) by NBL is supported by ΣΦ fam 1 (including
299) 6 22 33 60 75 91 124 [non fam] 157 604 892 Eust 48 Sod™ Origen,
and is quite on another footing. I mention it here, as I have not
listed it elsewhere, and the support is of the regular flock of minuscule
birds.
As regards the intimacy of sah and syr (without NB) observe xxii. 18
εἰπτεν + αὐτοῖς Z*” 33 892 sah syr cu sin and some pesh and e and aeth.
Note that in xxii. 11 12 evdvua yapov is again rendered by sah “the
clothing of the place of marriage,’ while syr omits this “locus,” nor do
NBL repeat anything but ἐνδυμα yapov in both places. Possibly then at
xxii. 10 the matter narrows down to syr influence on NBL.
When Cyr on the side of NBL opposes Origen it is always suspicious
of Alexandrian accommodation. See other places, Besides which, Cyr
and Origen are often on both sides of a question in different parts of their
writings. |
Matt.
xxii. 16. Aeyovras (pro Aeyovtes) NBLT” 27 66 against all the rest
and Dam. This is quite a clear case in order to refer to
ἀποστέλλουσιν Tous μαθητας... It would have been impossible
for ‘“‘ Antioch” to revise here. λέγοντας is clearly the more
natural, and λέγοντες (eschewed by NBL) the more difficult.
Matt.
xxill. 9.
xxv. 18.
IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 67
Notice the lone and lorn company of the cursives 27 66
added here. The passage is καὶ αποστελλουσιν avTw Tous
μαθητὰς avtwy peta tov Hpwdisavev λεγοντας" διδασκαλε K.T.r.
Soden misquotes 604.
o πατὴρ ο oupavios [ pro ὁ πατήρ o ev (τοις) ovpavors| NBL fam
13 [non 346] 88 238 892 Bas 1/2 Cyr 1/2, against the rest and
latt copt Clem Hus Nyss Bas 1/2 Cyr 1/2 Dam. This is more
important than it seems at first sight, for it appears to be a
“nicety”” of NBL to conform to supposed Matthaean usage.
Bas 1/2 and Cyr 1/2 are suspicious marks. Turn to Sir John
Hawkins’ ‘Horae Synopticae,’ p. 32, and there will be found the
remark that ovpavos is Matthaean (being only used elsewhere
once in Luke ii. 187 and once in Acts xxvi. 19). He lists the
Matthaean passages as v. 48, vi. 14 26 32, xv. 13, xviii. 35,
xxiii. 9. This from Westcott and Hort’s text.t Now as to
the passages intervening between the first and the last, the
remark is correct, but at v.48 as here at xxiii. 9 the authorities
are divided. Clem is on both sides at v. 48, and a considerable
number witness there for ovpamos, but here at xxiii. 9 it is
different, and Clem Orig Eus the Latins and Coptics besides
all other Greeks witness against NBL and three cursives.
It is probably therefore a wish to conform to Matthaean
diction here. At this rate all individuality will be
lost to our synoptists and the problem thrown into con-
fusion. See under xxi. 18 and elsewhere for the same kind of
thing. [Soden has ο ovpavios in text but only cites °°" new. |
wpvéev ynv ὃὲβξβ (την ynv C* 604) L 88 fi vg arm boh aeth
(om ff: ynv) against ὠρυξεν ev τη yn by all the rest, including Ὁ
latt sah syr Orig, I charge this (observe against sah syr
lat?!) to be a deliberate improvement, greedily seized by West-
cott ¢ Hort and Sod (for they have no marginal alternative),
but an improvement nevertheless. Why should ‘‘ Antioch”’
and even 892 have revised to ev τὴ yn, when wpvfev nearly
always takes the accusative? This is a deliberate Alexandrian
nicety of grammar. The word occurred at Matt xxi. 383 “ nas
wpv&ey ev avtw Anvev,” and occurs once more only at Mark
xit. 1 “καὶ wpvEev υποληνιον,᾽ where there was no room for
improvement, although even at Matt. xxi. 33 δὲ saw fit to
remove ev before avrw. I do not charge this as a harmonistic
improvement at all, for in the parallel in Luke xix. 20 the
servant hides the talent in a napkin, nor did “ Antioch” get
¢ ovpamov is here used, but B*D*d recognizing that ουρανιος is not Lucan change to
ovpavov. No others change.
1 Which has befogged the synoptic problem.
F 2
68 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt.
ev tr yn from Matt. xxv. 25 ἐεκρυψα τὸ τάλαντον σοὺ ev τὴ γη.ἷ
It is simply a grammatical improvement. The company kept
is merely of a sympathetic order which our other studies lead
us to expect here.
xxv. 27. εδει ce ουν (pro εδει ουν ce) NBCL 88 604 892 y** Sod", against
all else and against Coptics and Latins, savours of improvement.
XXvii. 5. pias Ta apyvpia ets Tov νον (proev τῶ vaw) NBLI33
fam 69 99 157 273 604 Sod “3 and versions, but not latin
nord. Orig and Hus are on the side of NBL for this improve-
ment with Sod. Cf B alone at Matt. x. 16 dou eyw ἀποστέλλω
υμαᾶς ws προβατα evs μεσον λυκων, instead of ev μεσω λυκων.
42. πιστευ. ἐπ αὐτὸν NBL 33 42 46 238 948 273 892
Sod™or Hust 60 12 (sol inter latt cum Aug) (syr) Cyr®™ (ες
avtov & min‘, avrov sah boh, avr» AD min aliq Eus Ps-Ath et
latt ei, sed er avrw EW unc" minr')
44, συνσταυρωθεντες συν avtw NB 892
σταυρώθεντες συν avTw DL latt verss
συνσταυρωώθεντες μετ avtov Θ΄ 157
auto AW unc? rell omn vid
I should hesitate to class this as an improvement, but for four
things, first because Θ' by improvising wer αὑτοῦ shows that there was no
συν in his copy or he would no doubt have used it, secondly the absence
of any minuscules to support NB, but 892, thirdly the simpler reading of
DL, and fourthly the general bad record of NB in such matters. Someone
has revised here. I would be willing to accept the reading of NB if need
be, but we should require a good number of cursives to tell us it was
right, whereas neither 1 nor 13 (28 wanting) nor 2°¢ nor 604 come into
play at all, while 157 sides with ©.
xxvil. 64. —avrov Only XB arm pers, but no cursives, and Tisch W-H
tat [non R-V Sod] Soden can find no cursives to support.
XXVili. 8. απέλθουσαι ( pro εξελθουσαι) NBCL fam 13 33 Sod™*!-4 Sod“ ete.
No others do it. Neither W nor 892 nor the coptics.
Burgon points out (‘Last twelve verses of St. Mark,’ p. 84) that
this group NBCL 13 33 ¢ has ignorantly effected revision here, forgetting
that the women were inside the grave (Mark xvi. 5 καὶ εισέλθουσαι εἰς το
μνημεῖον ... ΧΥΪ. 8 καὶ εξελθουσαι εφυγον amo Tov μνημείου; Luke xxiv. 3
εἰσέλθουσαι Se οὐχ ευρον TO σωμα.... 9 καὶ υποστρεψασαι ἀπο τοῦ μνημειου)
and therefore that this is ἃ purely gratuitous emendation by NBCL in
Matt. because in St. Matthew’s account the entrance into the grave is
not specified. I agree with him.
This should, perhaps, come under the head of “ Exchange of
Prepositions.”
a a a eR eed
ἡ In verse 18 “he dug (‘a hole’ understood) in the ground.” In verse 25 “I hid
thy talent in the ground” is different.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 69
Lastly we will adduce some of the passages where
Matt,
vi.
Xi.
xu.
χῖν.
XVi.
XVii.
7.
36.
48.
B and Origen are in conflict :
umoxpitat = B3(= Sod'*) syr cu only
εθνικοι the rest and Orig
B or 8B and Origen in conflict.
Most serious opposition as to the Greek fundamental text:
ὃ ἐὰν λαληλωσιν Orig Li and most, against NBD (NB ὃ (— εαν)
λαλησουσιν ; D ὃ (—ecav) λαλουσιν), where NB take the side of
Coptic and partially of Latin, but Latins (except d) have quod
and the subjunctive. What are ff and k doing with “ quod
locuti fuerint” if NBD be right (and these do not agree
among themselves)? Has Origen gone crazy here too? Why
should we think Origen wrong here now with the mass of
Greeks including all the cursives usually otherwise sympathetic
to the NB recension as against these mss ?
NB unc! rell = ἐκλαμψουσιν, but D (ἃ lucebunt) 124 238 Cyr
ORIGEN and (Justin) have λαμψουσιν (Justin οταν ot μεν
δικαίοι λαμψωσιν for tote οἱ Six. λαμψουσιν). Hence if we
want Origen’s text with D, it is the uncompounded word (for
which also syrt copt and latt rell ‘‘ fulgebant ” may also stand)
which we need. Nota whisper in Westcott and Hort’s text or
margin of D ὦ Justin Cyr Orig! (To these add Sod*" fam ¢*.)
. Twice in this verse B opposes Origen, once specifically. B
adds (with the versions) αὐτου after τοὺς μαθητας against Orig
diserte, and writes mov for τὸ mAowov against Origen and
the mass.
36. +xav 1 22 33 al. Origen but μονον XB and the other Greeks.
. 22. δείνως 1 [non fam] and Orig (φῇ a sevissime).
KAKWS NB unc omn rell minn,
20. ἐπετίμησεν B*D syr cu ἃ ὁ against the rest and Origiater,
διεστείλατο and Orig diserte ‘‘o μὲν ovy ματθ. πεποίηκε Kata
τινα των ἀντύγραφων To ToTe διεστείλατο... «ἰστεον δε OTL τίνα τῶν
ἀντιγρ. του κατα ματθ. exer τὸ ἐπετίμησεν ᾿᾿ since he himself uses
διεστείλατο four times. Hort sees a necessity to put ἐπετίμησεν
in his text.
. συστρεφομενων Se avrov δὲ ΒΊ1 (non fam] 892 W-H tat, Sod mg
latt pl conversantibus.
ἀναστρεφομένων Se αντων CD rell omn et boh et re... ffi 6 6.
The “neutral ” text is found in Origen στρεφομενων Se αὐτῶν
(cf sah syr).
+ Syr cw sin vary; cw “gleam,” sin “shine,” almost imperceptible difference in
writing the syriac words.
70 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt.
(xviii. 10. I forbear to say anything about Orig and Hus - τῶν ev Ty
ἐκκλησία after opate wn καταφρονήσητε ενος των μικρων τουτων)
xx. 16. (See under “‘ Coptic.’’)
xxi. 5. See under “ Improvement.”
6. Seeunder ‘Improvement ” συνεταξεν BCD 33 604 Evst48 Sod'***
προσεταξεν ὃὲ rell omn Orig*® Huss
19. ov μηκετι BLA against
pnxete N rell and Orig!
Xxli. 4. ητοιμακα NBCDLEAN 1 22 88 892* Sods
ητοιμασα rell et Orig Cyr Dam
10. ο νυμφωνΐ NBL 892 Sod! only (no other min),
0 γαμος rell omn et Origen bis
xxiii. 87. επισυναξαι Orig Eus (επισυναγειν ὃδ, εἐπισυναγαγειν Β γεῖδ
xxv. 41. οἱ xarnpapevor Orig>® Hipp Const Hus Caes Bas (xatnpapevot
NBLT" 33 Sod!** boh Cyr 1/2 soli)
ΧΧΥΪ. 28. τῆς καινης διαθηκης Orig and most {τῆς διαθηκὴης NBLZ 33 Sod?
bohunus Cyr (Cypr) )
39. Of our Lord’s prayer: πάτερ tantum Orig**es sis (e¢ Celsus) et
Justin Tren” Husseses Athte Ps-Ath Cypr Did Cyr Bass a
δ μι vgg® et dim Orig'**¥is, with LAD fam 1 892 al, witness
against πάτερ μου of NB and the rest.
In Westcott and Hort’s margin there is not a sign of any
alternative to πάτερ μου, and yet surely Celsus’ and the
Valentinians’ ‘‘ w πάτερ deserves ἃ hearing !
53. πλείω only NBD (att) against Origen πλείους with all the rest ;
Soden quotes Orig for πλείω.
δωδεκα (-- ἢ NBDL 604 ὁ ἃ against Origen ἡ δωδεκα with all
the rest.
Above we have certainly two really “ neutral” readings of
Origen, as against NB, xiii. 43 λαμψουσιν and xxvi. 39 πάτερ.
Hort, vol i. p. 557: ‘“ On the other hand every combination of δὲ with
another primary Ms presents for the most part readings which cannot be
finally approved...” But thereagainst note:
aa Origen and & against B.
Vi. 7. εθνικοι δὲ omn et Orig (contra BI syr cu υποκριται)
21. καὶ ἡ καρδια δ omn et Orig (contra B m aeth boh*™™ — Kar)
vil. 14 init. ote (—Se) N*X m boh Orig Naass etc (ott δὲ B sah 4/6)
x. 87. Habent καὶ o φίλων. «μου akios ὃὲ plur Orig Orig™ Eus
Cypr 2/3 (contra BD 17 248 αἴϑοὰ d Cypr 1/3 om)
xi. 15. Habent ἀκουειν & plur Docet Just Orig Orig (contra om BD
82 174 604 ἃ k syr sin)
t Cf article under “ Improvement” and sah syr.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 71
Matt.
xi. 21. Habent καθημενοι NCU 33 al. Orig Origi™ (contra om B
plur sah boh syr lat)
xl, 49. χειραν δ (Ὁ) latt pl Orig Evang®™ (-Ε αὐτου B plur)
ΧΙ]. 4. καὶ ηλθεν ta πετεινὰ καὶ κατεφαγεν ND plur Orig (καὶ
ἔλθοντα τα πετεινὰ xated. B fam 13 Sod 4 ρὲ txt)
{ xv. 82, ἡμερας τρεῖς ὃξ min Orig”® (τρεις ἡμερας B al.)
Xvli. 4. τρεῖς σκῆηνας ὃξ plur Orig’ (σκηνας τρεῖς B e)
xvi. 1. επηρωτων N min alig boh Orig (ernpwrncav BCD al.)
14. αλλοι δε N plur copt lat syr Orig (οι δὲ Β Hus)
20, διεστείλατο ὃξ ρίτιν sah boh Orig (ἐπετίμησεν BD)
Xvll, 9. avacrn N plur Orig (eyep9n BD Sod'***)
10. --αὑτου NLWZ Sod al. Orig (Habent B plur)
25. amo τίνων ἐξ plur Orig Cyr 2/4 (απο τινος B Sod™4 Cyr 2/4)
xviii. 7, Habent ἐστιν ®& plur Orig (om BLE al.)
16. δυο ἡ τρίων μαρτυρων ἃς al. Orig (δυο μαρτ. ἡ τριων B al.)
xx. 17. τοὺς δωδεκα tantum NDLZ ete Orig (contra B et rel)
xxi. 6, προσεταξεν ὃὲ plur Orig’ (συνεταξεν BCD 33 604 Hust 48
Sod353)
8. (sec loco) ectpwcav = ND*"c 6 θ΄, ᾳ boh Orig (εστρωννυον B rell)
19. yevouro (for yevytar) ® Sod? Orig'®
Etc etc, and often 892 is on the side of δὲ in the above list.
Further note that 8B when they are in sympathy with the Zvouny®™
do not keep on the same side. At xii. 48 B is with this Gospel. At
xii. 49 itis δῇ,
But see as to δὲ in detail Part II. where the main differences between
ἐξ and B are recorded with the supporting authorities.
CHAPTER IIT.
B in St. Marr’s GosrPen.
‘“ Uberblickt man in Grossen die Ergebnisse fiir Markus, so sind sie der Annahme,
dass in ihm die iilteste Aufzeichnung vorliegt, nicht giinstig. Er ist dem Judentum
entfremdet...Ausserdem ist Markus vielfach titbermalt...”—Merx : Die vier kanonischen
Evangelien, etc, τι. Theil, τσ, Halfte, p. 173.
‘‘And what means are there to decide such questions? As long as scholars dream
of one definite primitive Gospel, in open contradiction to Luke’s proem, they will both
raise and answer them; but as soon as that unwarranted supposition is removed we get
rid of a host of inextricable questions.”"—Blass: Philology of the Gospels, pp. 178/179.
I would like to preface what I have to say as to St. Mark’s Gospel
by the remark that all I have written should be included between two very
large square brackets; for the problems offered in this Gospel are utterly
different from those which exist in the other three. It is true that the
same features as to NBCL exist to some extent in St. Mark as elsewhere,
but they must be considered from a different point of view. One new
feature is the constant addition of A in St. Mark to the ΒΤ, group. A
in St. Mark is purely NBL ; I cannot say “ Egyptian ” exactly, although
there is Coptic sympathy with this group, because W comes in here to
show us an absolutely different Greek recension existing in Egypt side
by side with that of NB. Although DW are close, W 6 are twin brethren
from Mark i—iv. jim and it seems that I was perfectly right to speak
of two or three Greek recensions in St. Mark.
Consider this: iv. 1.
NBCL:
καθησθαι ev τὴ Oadacon καὶ πᾶς ὁ oxdos πρὸς THY θαλασσαν emt
τῆς γῆς σαν
D:
κάθησται περαν τῆς θαλασσης καὶ πᾶς 0 oyAos πέραν τῆς θαλασσης ἣν
d circa mare adtlq_ circa mare
Ww:
καθησθαι Tapa Tov αἰγίαλον καὶ Tras ὁ οχλος εν τω αἰγίάλω ην
be ad litus beef #2 σι in litore
¢ ff, —_ proxime litus Orig'* secus mare in terris
vg circa mare super terram
As to nv (pro nav) erat is read by a ὃ g21 q vg Orig", erant by d,
stabat is found in f ff, σι, while ὁ (r) reads staret, and it is left to e to write
sedebat. As W does not conform to this last, we must suppose that W
was not deliberately following our 6, but something much older, and
note b has erat and d has erant.
How is it that neither 2°¢ nor 604 have any relation to W and the
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 73
Latins here? All the Old Latin and Coptic elide exe τῆς γῆς or include
it in the expression in litore. It is left for W alone to graecize this.
Right after this, the common base of W ὃ ce apart from the rest
and apart from D d omit in iv. 5 δια to μὴ exew Babos yns.
That the Greek of W is an independent translation is seen at iv. 20,
for W alone writes to ev (ter) for εν. And ab iv. 21 καίεται for epxeras,
where D has αἀπτεται, which can be read in two ways. Otherwise we
might think that 6 obtained damus from the δωμεν of W (iv. 30, others
Owpev or παραβαλωμεν), or that ὃ e got crescit from av&e of W (iv. 32,
others αναβαινει), instead of W obtaining this Greek via the Latin.
An interesting point is the doubling of puella by ὁ in v. 41, but W
with the rest τὸ xopactov, so that e obtained this later than the time of
W, and Aphraates’ remarks on this subject appear to be the merest
tradition. This is helpful as to dates.
W4 (which breaks in at vii. 33) seems further to be another
independent translation.
Mark.
In Mark we must be exceedingly careful and avail ourselves of every
scrap of new evidence. I will therefore recapitulate the position as to
several important witnesses.
k only begins at viii. 8, but eis available for i. 20-vi. 9 (again only
at xii, 37—xiii. 3, xiii, 24-27, 83-86) and 7 fills in the gap between 6 and
k from vi. 13-viii. 8.
= gives us all Mark to xvi. 14 middle; Φ i. I-xiv. 62; W only
from ix. 6 (shortly after & begins) to end. Paris’ and 604 and 2”° give
us all St. Mark. Syr sim begins at i. 12/138 and gives all St. Mark
to xvi. 8 except i. 44-ii. 21, iv. 18-41 and v. 26-vi. 5. Nothing of Syr cu
survives except xvi. 17-20, which is interesting as giving part of the
portion at the end after xvi. 8. Finally we have the inestimable new
witness W, which gives us all St. Mark (except xv. 12-88) including
Xvi. 9-20 with a long addition therein.
We have also Horner’s completed labours on sah and boh.
The Palestinian syriac replaces syr cw sin at i. 1-12 and in the
ii and τὴν chapters, but not in the iv’,
The cursives Laura4'+ and Paris®’ I continue to quote thus as
Gregory’s and Scrivener’s numbers differ. I have also used by number
8921 collated by Rendel Harris in 1890, as this number is the same in
1 Consider also ὁπόταν W alone at iv, 81 for os oray (οταν N*) or o ort av Ὁ. Note
the absolute independence of W at iii. 8 ex τὸν μέσου for es ro μεσον (2 ὃ de f ἢ, 4 Sin
medium) or ev peow Dot Paris® (c 1 vgKZ in medio). Also esSov W80l at ii. 12 (for etdoper)
= viderunt of ¢ (Ὁ) (vidisse se a 4) while ὁ has vidimus. So that here ὃ ὁ W are either
basic or the reverse. Which ? Ν᾽ seeks to improve by substituting alone εφανή ev τω ἐἰσραηλ.
t =Sod'8, Apparently not used by Souter, but it seems even closer to NB than Paris®.
74 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Gregory and Scrivener-Miller, and it has much affinity with NB and is
useful before chapter ix where V begins.
Example of Editing by B.
Mark
"xiii, 88, ~ καὶ προσευχεσθε BD 122 acd k vg'* W-H soli contra mundum.
I wish to point out that & does not strengthen here because we
catch k (alone among Latins) going with B two verses further on (xiii. 35)
in a question of “pairs.” Besides, why are N and Li absent; why do
604 892 and Paris” withhold their support? And where are the Coptic
and the Syriac versions, which scholars tell me merely share the base
of B? Not even 2° joins BD here. And W abstains with 28 and 157,
fam 1and fam 13. [Von Soden adds no fresh Greeks, not even ὃ 30 or 050. |
Solecisms of B.
as i, 18. ηκολουθουν (pro ἠκολουθησαν) B (See under Historic present)
26. το ακαθαρτον (— To πνευμὼ B. Observe 67, τὸ πνευμα (-- τὸ
ακαθαρτον) while W omits the whole.
86. -- οἱ Bee
40. κυριε ort B™! (sah boh οτι κυριε, sed al. vel om κυριε
vel ott vel ambas lectt)
ibid. δυνη (pro dvvaca) B". Why not δυνα Ὁ [See ix. 22, 23.]
45. — nv B (— nv καὶ ὃ e sola inter verss)
These three points occurring thus
Μ᾿ Ν᾿ together after an interval of two
iii, 84 init. —xas is aa
chapters are absolutely indicative of
editing. The central one shows
boh influence and the sympathy of
two Latins.
iv. 5. καισπυ B' («Ὁ The others have omov, or καὶ ot. DW
it?- Jt looks like a kind of “conflate” here in this “‘ neutral”
text. Hort prints [καὶ] omov, quite disguising the real
situation.
wbid Babos της yns (pro Babos yns) B*! cum Sod [ut Bin Matt.
xiii. 5]. D® alone agrees to insert an article Pabos τὴν ynv. N
and all the rest against them. [W and its faithful allies ὃ ὁ ὁ
omit the clause.] The additjon of the article alone by BD
looks like translation from Latin.
85. -- γαρ B boh be
ibid, ta θέλημαα §=B
11. εξωθεν (pro εξω) B34 (contra rell et Orig)
15. ov oray (pro καὶ οταν) B™ (cf pers)
16. orav (pro ot οταν) Bol
20. —ev sec et tert B™ et ἃ (of syr)
22 fin. φανερωθη B™ (¢f syr sah pers aeth)
28. πληρες σεῖτος B (DW πληρῆς ο σειτος)
82. κατασκηνοιν Β
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 75
Mark
v. 36. + τὸν (ante λαλουμενον)ὴ “τον λογον Tov λαλουμενον BY
38 fin. πολλας (pro ππολλα) B™ (oAXovs Sod™°)
vi, 17. — τὴν γυναικα B* tat sol cum Sod
33. ἐγνωσαν BD fam 1
39. ev (pro em) Be
54 init. καὶ εξελθοντων (-- αὐτων) B"
vil. 4. azrep ἔλαβον (pro a mapedaBov) ἘἘ Paris*? Sod?
14. Aeyes (pro ἐλεγεν) B 59 soli (see under ‘‘ Historic present ’’)
15.f To xowovv avrov (pro o Suvatat avtov κοινωσα)ὺ B* (ef Aug)
ibid fin. —tov (ante avOpwrov) Bev (against sah; this is to be
noted because boh acts peculiarly in verse 15, and it is with
boh [non sah] that NBLA omit the verse 16 following).
21. ἐκεῖθε (pro εκειθεν) B. This is a “" δισθὺν ᾿᾿ before δε.
37. +as (post rerounxer) B. See under “ Coptic.”
vill. 2. ημεραῖς τρισι B* cum 892 (Harris, Journ. Bib. Lit.
1890, vol. ix.)
12. --υμιν BU, no others, no versions, not Origen.
But W omits both λέγω and vuw, having only aun.
32. >o metposavrov Bl asoli W-H Sod (sed cf sah boh). There
is no good reason for the change by BL: καὶ προσλαβομενος o
πετρος αὑτον ἡρξατο instead of Kat προσλ. avtov o πετρος ἡρξατο.
87. +0 (ante avOpwros) ΒΝ See under “ Coptic.”
Ix. 1. woe των εστηκοτων B(D*), cf ¢ f l vg [contra &, contra
Orig]
21. ews B®! (ews ov Sod*?)
x. 80. ζωην αἰωνίαν (pro ζωὴν awvov) B*'. Here is a purist for
you. No others seem to change. Clem turns it “ ζωήν ἐστιν
αἰώνιος, Q.D.S. § 25, but Barnard in his note to ‘Clem. of
Alex. Bibl. Text,’ p. 85 = ζωή ἐστιν αἰώνιος.
39. δυνομεθα (pro δυναμεθα) pees
48, avtoo πολλοι (pro αὐτω vel avtov TodAot) Β΄. Cf Orig avrw
οἱ πολλοι and sah
xi. 1. βηδῴφαγη B! (Gf sah 1/5)
ibid, To ehatwv (pro των ἐλαιων) B*! (cf & et k)
7, 8. εαυὐτων bis$ Be! cum 892 (vide infra xiii. 44) (Sod? 1279")
11. -- τῆς wpas B cum ἃ ϑοαι 1 43 444 (ef aeth syr sin)
xl. 5. αποκτεννυντες B 892 Evst 150
8. εξεβαλαν Be
17. —avrois BD d [non αἰ.
86. —ev (ante tw πνευματι) Be! cum Sod? 273
ibid. καθισον (pro καθου) Be
+ This hardly seems a change “ guiltless of ingenuity or other untimely activity of
the brain and unaffected by mental influences except of the most limited and unconscious
kind ” (Hort) for in vv. 18/15 B opposes δὶ eight times !
$ See page 11 as to this Alexandrian preference.
76 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
xii. 40. κατεσθοντες B Cf Luc vii. 33
xii, 3. καθιδιαν B
7. axounte B et Sod"
9. evexa (pro ενεκεν) 59] νἱὰ
12. επαναστησεται B* cum Sod*™ k (cf BA Matt. x. 21 ὧν loco
parall.)
18. εἰς στέλος BO
30. ews οτου B* (variant plurimum rell,
vide Part IT.)
32. ayyeros (pro οἱ ayyedoz) B™ (et bohwinavre 4 ygliere)
84. eavrov pr et 860 (pro avtov) Bl vid (vide supra xi. 7, 8
xiv. 20 fin. +ev (inter ro et τρυβλιον) Be! (C* 2?) Sod? QP* See
under ‘ Coptic.”
24. —avtos Bw
32. —wde B*! (avtov pro woe fam 1)
43. amo τῶν apy. (pro Tapa των apy.) B
49. expares (pro expatnoate) B (expaterte WV)
60. ore (pro τὴ BWY sold (ef boh) (τοι 18)
63. κυτωνας B@ (ut S alibi)
69. evrev (pro ἡρξατο λεγειν) B™. See under “Coptic.”
xv. 4. —ovdev B Paris®™ soli vid
12. ποίησω λεγετε (pro θέλετε ποιήσω ov λεγετ B et W-H [ov]
15. ποιεῖν (pro troucas) B™@ cum Laura’!
35, εστηκοτων B°'(A) (pro παρεστωτων RDU al. pauc,
παρεστηκοτῶν al.)
45, wwon (pro swond) BW solt
xvi. 5. ἔλθουσαι (pro εἰσελθουσαι) B 127 sola
B and Latin Sympathy.
It continues to be impossible to divorce B from the Latin and to
treat its text as ‘‘ neutral.”
Consult Mark xiv. 30 με απαρνηση (pro arapynon we) NBDAC (fam 13)
(με apynon W) and latt (W-H Sod). All others and V have the common
order. The point being that B is supported by both the graeco-latins
DA (ὦ 69* Sod and k* alone omit με, evidently seeing in their copies
the ¢wo orders). In this case, by Hort’s canons, L 69 Sod and & would
represent the ‘“‘true” ‘‘neutral’’ shorter text against B. But this is
very unlikely, as με is required in this sentence.
In xiv. 72 the same order occurs in NBCL.WAY Old Latins and copt
(W-H Sod).
As bearing on this in the immediate context note Mark xv. 1, where
BDLY4 Sod 46 2°* 892 Sod’**" omit ers τὸ before πρωι, agreeing exactly
with the Latin mane. Again here D supports (so W-H tat, not Sod).
B IN ST, MARK’S GOSPEL. 77
In the same neighbourhood, Mark xv. 82 NBDKLAII (W-H Sod)
omit tov before wpanr. Here we have conjunction BDA once more
with the Latin. W is wanting but 28 157 604 Paris” do not omit.
Again xv. 80 for καὶ xataBa of Greek and Syr we find xataBas by
NBD*AYV Sod? and k ἐ n vg copt (W-H Sod).
Again xv. 27 for cravpovaw of the usual text we find ecravpwcav
by B 2”° agreeing with ὁ ὦ ff, k ἢ not followed by W-H or Sod.
Incidentally we may ask why BDW and c*™ Sod'*# are found alone
in conjunction at xv. 44 with ηδὴ for mara. Is this small group really
“neutral” here against all else? If so it is a graeco-latin (jam... jam).
Hort has it in his text, so that it must be ‘‘ neutral’ as well!
Referring to #’s omission in xiv. 30, we find another case at xv. 8,
where there are two very different readings to choose from, ἀναβὰς
(of NBD 892 sah boh goth (a) ὁ ἃ ff, lr ὃ vg) and αναβοησας (of the
great majority of Greeks, of the syriac, of arm and of diatess™*”), be fig
are wanting, but 6 writes ascendisset over avaPonoas. Aeth conflates
both readings.
We know then that in k’s time both readings must have been extant
—as k omits—and B chose (siding with ND on the Latin side).
It is quite noteworthy that B goes with the EHyyptian versions
here, besides the Latin, against the syriacs and the diatessaron, and
against NA fifteen uncials and W and all the cursives including fam 1
fam 13 28 and 157 485 and 2?* 604.
This is a very remarkable place and merits more attention in these
discussions than it has hitherto received. The new uncial W with ¥
(ὦ wanting) VW and the notable cursives Paris’ and Laura‘ with all
Soden’s other codices go with the mass of Greeks for avaPoncas against
NBD 892 latt, while the Latin here is hopelessly opposed to the Syriac
and to its great friend the diatessaron. Further observe extraordinary
unanimity here among the Latins (the Latin diatessaron vg? is confused
here and leaves out Mark xv. 8). Sod follows Hort with avaBas.
Jebb refers to a similar case in the Old Testament as regards
ἀνεβησεν and avaBonoey 2 Kings xxiii. 9.
For further detail, observe the following :
Mark i. 2. —eyo BD Sod 2°° latt
10. εἰς avtov (pro em avTov) BD fam13a di and vg in
ipso, ὃ in eo, against all the rest and the sympathising
cursives. ὟΝ seems to have changed etc to en at the time
it was written. Sod follows Hort for es.
iv. 1. οχλος πλειστος pro οχλος ToAUs NBCLA and only these plus
W 892 W-H Sod. Possibly from an original turba multa multa
(this redupl. is quite common), but cf. Matt xiii. 2 at the parallel
where πὰς ὁ οχλος is used. πλεῖστος is unusual, occurring only
in the Gospels at Matt. xi. 20 at πλεισται Suvawers αὐτου and
Matt. xxi. 8 ὁ δὲ πλειστος οχλος. As W joins exceptionally
Mark
iv. 3.
21.
vii. 6.
viii. 10.
x. 80.
87.
xi. 2.
xii. 80.
xiv. 10.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
I should think multa multa must have stood in the copies.
(See note to John vii. 39 in Part II). Nor do I need to be told
that this is far-fetched, because in the very next words W
“gives away’ a purely latin reading known only from ὃ 6 which
have ad litus for ev τη θαλασση (primo loco) while W has παρα
tov αὐυγίιῶλον. D has only πέραν της θαλασσης and 131 παρα
την θάλασσαν. d = circa mare, a circa litns maris, c ff, proxime
litus, 2°° = ems τὴ Oadacon and g super mare.
In secundo loco where most have πρὸς την θαλασσαν, but De
περᾶν τῆς θαλάσσης (a ἃ 1 g circa mare), W has ev τω αὐγιαλω
with bce f ff; in litore.
oretpat (pro tov σπειρα)ὴ N*BWT Sod?” et W-H [Sod tat]
Cf seminare it?! et d (om D®)
. προσεκυνησεν αὐτὸν (pro mp. αὐτὼ BACLA 892 al. d [contra
De] δ᾽ et latt copt (et W-H Sod)
εν πλοιω (— Tw) B 447 soli inter gr. et vg et f ὃ
[contra copt et NW rell ev tw πλοιω, sed om ev τω πλοίω D it?"
> 0 λαὸς ovTos BD 872 Laura4 latt against all
others as well as W and copt. Not followed by W-H Sod ἐπέ.
Ἕαυτος (post εμβας) B*! 372 W-H mg, --avtos ante εμβας
ὃ dir, et Ὁ k ipse ascendit
Conv αἰωνίαν B*! Cf vitam aeternam
- σου sec. BWDAYW5 2Ρὲ Sod!3 bc fa σι παν δ
εκαθισεν (pro κεκαθικε)ὺ NBCLAY. No doubt on account
of sedit all Latins. Only Sod%*-5 Qr¢ 604 892 Paris’ and
Evst 36 join V in supporting NBCLA. Soden txt refuses it.
- τῆς ante xapdias
—THS ,, ψυχης B@ vid
—Tys ,, διανοίας
This is quite striking. D*XY omit the first one only.
πο (ante texapwwrns) N*BC*DW 23 fam 13 [non 124] 28 440
Laura Soda Orig, against sah bok and the rest and refused
by Sod.
(But immediately after NBC*LMW have ὁ els (for εἷς) accepted
21.
xv. 15.
27.
by Sod with boh (πιο δ.) against sah o-ea. and latt : unus)
—nv (post καλον)ὴ ἜΤ, et W 892 ὁ fri 1 q aur vg™® but
refused by Sod. Neither Ψ nor Paris®’ omit and none of the
others, not even 2°*. The εἰ (si) following may have been
confused for εἶ (est) “‘xadov avtw εἰ ove eyerynOn” but the
Latins who omit nv say “ bonum illi si non esset ” (fuisset 4).
το txavoy Trovew (pro To tk. ποίησαι) B LauraA™ soli. Refused by
W-H Sod. Cf lat satisfacere [sed d ff, k r™4 om claus cum De,
et hiant be fi q, et a mutilus ab Pilatus autem. ..xv. 15].
ἐσταυρωσαν (pro ataupovow) B 2° ¢ ἃ ff, k n (= ipomn tere,
hiant be fiqrr.) aur gat vg®“, refused by W-H Sod.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 79
Mark
᾿ xv. 44. ηδὴ (pro mada) sec loco BDW οἷ᾽ Sod? soli vid. This
corresponds to the yam... jam of the Latins.
W goes as far as to repeat the τεθνηκεν in the second place for
ἀπεθανεν of nearly all. D says τεθνηκει (syr sin omits πάλαι, and QP
n 7, omit the clause).
xvi. 2. -- τη (ante pia) BW1soliet[W-H]. Cf latt una vel prima.
Soden holds τῆς peas, but his notes are confusing in the
extreme.
As to Coptic.
i. 4. κηρυσσων (— xa) 3B 33 73 892 W-H sah boh*° [non al.]
84. τα δαιμονια λχαλεν B vid cum boh (hiat sah). The others
have Nave Ta δαιμονία, but D d latt syr sin aeth: αὐτὰ λαλειν
~ in the order of B, but more simply.
87. καὶ evpovy avtov καὶ Aeyovowy NBL 892 soli et W-H cum ὁ
boh™ aeth
This is a very noteworthy place. All the sympathising
cursives oppose and with the bulk of the uncials and boh?! have
Kat evpovres αὑτὸν dey., or as D lat syr arm goth sah καὶ ore
evpov avtov rey. Tisch records b ὁ for ‘nil nist dicentes.”
To these two Old Latin witnesses add the new W®, and it will
be seen that NBL 892 ¢ are left completely alone with boh 4:
and aeth.
To insist that these bok codices and aeth got it from NBL is to do
violence to the other passages witnessing to quite the contrary course.t
A curious and innate sympathy then remains here between these three
boh codices aeth and NBL e, while W breaks loose from 6 here, and with
b ὁ gives us much the shortest text.
1. 39. ηλθεν (pro nv) NBL Sod 892 sah boh aeth W-H Sod
against all else and syr latt arm goth. The “erat praedicans”’
is not very pretty in Latin, and yet the Latins held it. I am
convinced that ηλθεν is sheer improvement by NBL. Even
33 and Paris” desert them, and they had upheld them in two
violent changes in verse 88. Why on earth should “ Antioch”’
have substituted ἣν for ἡλθεν 9 N goes further and after
orev substitutes κηρύσσειν for κηρυσσων with boh.
ii. 1, —xar (ante ἠκουσθη) NBL 28 88 124 [non fam] 2° 604
Paris” W-H Sod. ac sah boh arm.
2. —evdews NBLW 33 604 Paris” 892 W-H (non Sod)
b gal ry, vg sah boh arm aeth syr8 (contra ΤῸ rell qui saepe
in ch. 1 evGews om.)
t For consider aeth at i. 84 where acth goes with syr sin Dd and all Latins; ati. 11
where it goes with a (f goth); at i. 15 with syr pesh; at i. 21 where it steers its own
course; abi. 29 with 3; ati. 38 with syr sin,
80 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Mark
i. 4. wpoceveyxas NBL Sod? (33) 63 258 372 892 Hust 48 fl vg
(offerre contra accedere it) sah boh aeth. This is an important
place. D with the rest and tt syr has mpoceyyioat (a few
eyyioat) and W προσελθειν. As to 28 2° 604 Paris” they con-
tradict flatly NBL copt and have mpoceyyicat. ἝΝ seems to be
retranslating accedere of the Old Latin. Sod refuses rpoceveyxat.
7 init. ott (pro tt) B Sod p** only. Cf ore τι of sah boh with
the usual introductory xe. Also syr. [But see ix. 11, 28.]
16. καὶ (οι) ypappates των φαρισαεων (pro Kat ot-ypam. καὶ or pap.)
read by NBLAW 88 28 124 (against the rest) ὁ copt (not syr)
The points which particularly appeal to me in such passages are the
opposition in the fam 13 group and the absence of such controlling Mss
as fam 1157 2°° [Soden quotes 9829] 604 892 Paris”.
Here, where Tisch. quotes copt (‘‘ita certe cop cop*tdetd”’) we
must correct from Horner. Sah reads καὶ o dap. (i.e. “with the
pharisees ”’) and only the bok mss A,F*?0 are reported for τῶν ¢dap. This
is important. For if while considering Egyptian or Alexandrian influence
on NB we are likely to be held up and the point made that NB influenced
the coptic versions instead of vice versa, we point to a passage like this
where the Egyptian versions refused to be influenced ; at any rate a trace
remains only in two bohairic mss and possibly in the first hand of a third.
ii. 17. + οτι (ante ov χρειαν) BA Sod? δ 2P° LauraA Sod* sah boh.
Absolutely no others yet greedily seized by Sod** [W-H**].
This is noteworthy for it is followed five words further by :
ibid. adrda(proarr’) BWsoltcumsah boh (morecopt), refused by Sod.
18. οὐ de σοι (—pabnrar) 3B sol cum 127 2°¢ boh®, refused by Sod.
This therefore establishes an absolute relationship between
B and coptic (= boh"'*) in vv. 17 and 18.
22. απολλυται Kat ot acco. B 892%'4 only, and so exactly boh. No
others, but accepted by W-H Sod. This among a very com-
plicated number of changes in the account of the wine and
bottles is most striking, coming right after the minutiae
noticed above.
11. 6. εδιδουν pro εποίουν BL fam 18 28 2°° 604 Sod*** only with
boh?i2419, adopted by W-H and Soden.
This is interesting (and cannot be classed beyond under
““Synonyms’”’) because the syriac can lend itself to either inter-
pretation and is indeterminate (rendered ceperunt by syr'™).
I hardly think it is fair to suggest that εδιδοὺυν is “ neutral” ;
rather is it a correction. Notice that δὲ is absent, reading
with CA Sod®° 2°* ἐποίησαν. The latins and d use faciebant
(ᾳ iniebant). Paris®’ ἐποίουν with most. D® ἃ ποίουντες. W
Sod? erocovvro. As to the coptic, notice A,O again come in
for εδιδουν as they did above for των φαρισαιων (ii. 16).
892* is uncertain with ἐποίησαν in the margin.
Mark
111.
8.
15.
Bd.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 81
move (pro ἐποιε)ὺ BL W-H (none of the sympathising cursives)
and sah bohs*mwe against ND and the rest +W2®.
—Ocparrevew τας vorovs καὶ NBC*LA 892 2” sah boh, against
all else [none of the other sympathising cursives nor Latin nor
Syriac nor Arm. nor Goth] yet followed by T Tr W-H Rev
and Soden tzt. Observe aeth which evidently put the clause
in after considerable research, for aeth adds it after εκβαλλειν
τα Satpovia instead of before the clause. This is not necessarily
‘ex Matt x. 1.
The community of Egyptian origin for NBLA is hereby
set forth, and the ‘“neutral’’ text transferred bodily to
Alexandria, and I claim that the ‘‘ neutral” text is part of a
revision by the Alexandrian School and not a survival of
Apostolic days. Here NBC*LA are supported not by a single
Greek cursive [except 2°° (against 604) 892], not by any syriac
or arm., not by any Latin, but by all the mss of the sah and
boh which we know.
In boh I may point out that there might be confusion and
exclusion from similarity of appearance between qyuor, and
«πὶ (infirmus). See Horner’s note in boh as to addition by
codd. ἘΠ 6",
The new Codex W* does not omit, and adds after δαιμονία
end of verse καὶ περίαγοντες κηρυσσιν To ευαγγελίον. The place,
folio 319, is worth study, for no στίχος space is found between
νόσους and καὶ exBadrewv, while there is one between δαιμονία
and the addition.
— yap B be boh et W-H tat [non Sod}
iv. 21. +o7e (ante wnt) BL 892 soli = copt+xe. Accepted by
W-H, refused by Sod.
Fam 18 and 28 add ἐδετε. The rest all omit.
The sentence runs: καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς [ote] pnts epyetas (απτεται D
laté) 0 λυχνος Wa ὑπὸ Tov μοδίιον τεθη.
Is it possible to imagine that BL preserve the original and that ail others,
including the other important sympathising cursives, have dropped it ?
More likely again BL show Egyptian or Alexandrian minds or eyes at work.
iv. 34. καὶ χωρις (pro χωρις Se) BOA 604 (sole inter gr-lat) cum sah
syr pesh aeth boh®' but refused by both W-H and Sod.
v. 42. καὶ εξεστησαν tevus NBCLA 88 892 [non al. min] boh aeth
Vi.
2,
8.
W-H Sod ἐπέ [contra DW rell et latt sah 5.0}.
+ ov (ante πολλοι) BL fam 18 [non 124] 28 [non W] 892%"
sah boh ator (sya emph) W-H Sod txt [Non Paris™ non δὲ].
Very strange if this of should have been cut out of all other
texts, including δὲ [V does not begin until ch. ix].
μὴ aprov μὴ πήραν NBCLA Sod}? 33 892 Paris*” boh
[non sah] aeth W-H Sod [contra W et D et rell omn et sah et
mann rell on].
82 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Mark
an vie 9, This is instantly followed by adda for aan (before υποδεδεμενους,
forming a hiatus) ex more copt by NABCDLUN® 28 scr?
Paris*’, but W is careful to write aA’ and insert an apostrophe !
11. This is again shortly afterwards followed by a pure coptic
form. For observe that coptic is always precise. It does not
say «δὲ or quo but always in loco quo. So here:
os av τόπος μὴ δεξηται NBLA*W fam 18 28 W-H Sod is
found in boh (sah) aeth vg", while the others have: os av μὴ
SeEntas C (fam 1) and AD and the large majority ooo: av μὴ
δεξωνται, latt etc. W here apparently shares the bohairic
influence against the Latins, but as 6 is missing now we cannot
be sure that it did not have it. A Latin trace remains in
vg” only, 72 is missing and only begins again at vi. 14.
20. -- καὶ (ante συνετηρεὼ B cum sah 1/3 (= sah™)
The previous places have all considerable importance and should be
observed carefully for they lead up to:
vi. 20. nope. (pro ero) NBL Sod™ (and W ἡπορειτο) sah boh,
against all the rest, against the friendly cursives, and against latt
syrr and aeth yet willingly incorporated by W-H & Sod texts.
The Semitic πολλὰ emotes appears to have offended the early
Alexandrian recensors of Greek and Coptic texts. But this clear coptic
adherence against all else destroys “neutrality” for NBL and for W
here.t See also the parallel in Luke.
Mark
7 vi. 27. eveyxas (pro evexOnvar) NBCA# 892 copt W-H [non Sod]
against all else and DW as well as L and Latt adferri. (See
under “Change of voice”). 6 over A& has “adferri vel adduci.”
40. κατα bis (pro ava bis) NBD 21 boh et W-H Sod tat.
vil. 4. ραντισωνται (pro βαπτισωνταὴ NB min® sah Euthym. See
under ‘‘ Improvement.”
6. +-ore (ante ovros o λαος) NBL 3872 892 Laura‘ boh sah
(syr) W-H Sod txt [non Paris*"]
16. Om vers boh [non sah] cum NBLA 28 [non W rell] W-H, non Sod.
᾿ 29. See under “ Order.”
37. Ἕως post remouxeyv BY! W-H™ (boh), ef sah + οοσστ ε et bohall4
Vili. 2. mpoopevover (— por) B™ cum bohesd tribus (Cf latt ὧδε εἰσι)
3 fin. εἰσιν (pro neacw vel neovew) BLA 892 sah 1/5 bohwattur
W-H [non Sod, non al. nec latt syr]
4. -οτι (ante roev) BLA 115 892 Paris®’ sah boh [non al.}
W-H ὁ Sod.t
t It is exceedingly important to distinguish and appreciate this overlying coptic
influence on W. I have observed that soon after the beginning of ch. v. W began to
drift away from 6. Since vi. 8 6 is missing, but we have seen above (vi. 11) the same
overlying Egyptian influence on W. Probably from y. onwards W used another graeco-
coptic ms.
1 Observe Soden’s thoroughly Alexandrian mind, adopting this but refusing the same
group above.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 83
Mark
In view of varying treatment here by others (see Tisch and
evidence) this seems purely “ Egyptian.”
Vill. 9-0 dayovres (See under “ Improvement.’’)
20. +avre (ante erra fin) BCLA 892 Sod" [non txt] boh sah aeth
ΟἹ, νοεῖτε (pro cuviete) ἔ 872 Sad? 4) sed ΤΡ cuvvoerre
This is rather a curious place. At first sight it looks simply
harmonistic from Matt xvi. 11 where νοεῖτε is used, but the σύυννοειτε of
Ds may be meant for οὖν νοεῖτε, and ovy is present in some Greeks
(fam 13) and in sah, but there it is GE not own as it would be in boh
if present there, where it does not find a place. The boh word for
συνίετε 15 tTeTrenafi but in sak =htveritnoe:. It seems clear
therefore that B may have seen this moet in a close parallel column and
written voecre by mistake rather than have recollected or borrowed from
St. Matthew.
Mark
vill. 23. βλέπεις (pro Bremer) BCD As Sod? 372 2°¢ Paris” sah boh
aeth (strengthened by syr sin diatess) but against all else.
W writes βλέπει, and 28 after hesitating (and doubtless consulting
his authorities) decides to do likewise; so does Sod txt against W-H.
viii. 28. tore (ante ἑωαννὴν) NB copt (ut solet) (syr) et W-H txt
contra rell et latt omn. Clearly from copt yet Sod txt has [ore].
ibid. ore (ante es) NBC*L 892 copt (wt solet) (syr) W-H Sod txt
(latt pl quasi unum, as eva 1), sed Gr?! et W eva tantum).
35. τὴν eavtov ψυχὴν (pro τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτου prim) 28 copt (μέ
solet) Orig W-H txt. No others.
87. +0 (ante avOpwros) B! cum sah et boh. Why do W-H
avoid ?
x. 1. +xas (ante repay) NBC*LY 892 sah boh (against repay
others and latin, and δια tou πέραν others, καὶ dua tov repay
TLaura4!), So W-H, and Sod in square brackets. Latter
omits cope.
6. --ο θεος NBCLA [non ΨΊ Sod? cd [non ff, male Sod.] sah boh
W-H [non al. latt gr non syr arm aeth] cf Matt xix.
24. -- τοὺς πεποίθοτας emt (rots) χρημασν NBWAW & sah boh
(aeth) {contra rell syr sin et Clem**] Cf Merx ad loc. Ὁ. 122 seq.
26. λέγοντες πρὸς αὑτὸν (pro Ney. προς εαυτους) NBCAYV 892
Sod™ § sah boh W-H, non Sod [contra rell et W et latt syr
acth arm goth (om mp. avt. Clem ut Matt Luc) |
As Tisch says “at nusquam apud Mc λεγεὶν πρὸς twa.” He
accordingly retains πρὸς cavrous in his text. Not so W-H, who of course
follow the little “Egyptian” (not “‘neutral’’) group. Souter’s R-V also
leaves αὐτὸν in the text, but places eavrovs in the sub-margin.
x. 29. >» pntepa ἡ πάτεραὶ ΒΟΔ et W® [non V] Sod?*, 61 106 2°
604 Sod™=* only of minuscules, ὁ f 4 only of Latins, with sah
boh order against the rest and Orig", but followed by Sod tat.
35. οἱ δυο vos (pro vios vel οἱ viot) BC Paris soli cum sah boh aeth.
G 2
84 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
This is against ND rell omn vid and W®Y and Orig with syr lat
arm. It is a clear improvisation from the account in Matthew (xx. 20 seq)
where the mother comes, but it does not say there “‘ with her two sons” f
but in verse 21 only does she ask ‘“‘ that her two sons..” Β is convicted
here of running with a coptic error against δὲ and Orig. How many
more instances of this kind must I adduce before the worshippers of B
and the obsequious slaves of Hort will allow that I am right? Coptic
and BC no more got this from a common original with coptic than B obtained
his αἰωνίαν in verse 30 from an original.t B and coptic conspired to add
δυο, and B wanted to exhibit the real gender of ζωὴν in verse 30. Because
the unfortunate and erring ΜΒ C supports B here in verse 35, Hort places
δυο in his text in square brackets. Can any system be more vicious?
Not even L or V is found to support BC copt, and even A pulls away
from the harmonising consortium of BC. AY really belong to the base
NBL, so that their defection here is absolutely conclusive. Nor is the not-
able cursive 892 recorded by Harris nor Soden’s other mss for this δυο.
εἰ x. 87. Ὁ σου ex δεξιων (pro εκ δεξιων cov) NBC*LAYV 892 boh [non
sah] 6. In the second clause boh repeats cov e£ apiotepov L™,
σου εξ evovupov SX", against most εξ ενωνυμων σον, but BDA
and WW 1 [non fam] 2°° Sod'*** omit the second cov with
be d θὰ σὰ τὶ k (om bis) ᾳ ὃ vg? "8 vg®. It may be worth while
to exhibit here boh and sah, which differ, as boh goes with
NBC*LAY in the first place :
boh PANS MTE OCI P,ERRCI CATEKOVINARR OCOD, OVA!
STALON CATEKXLAON Den mekwore
sah XEKAC EPE OTA ARRRON SP RKOOC OI OTNALK RLRLOK
ATW OTL OI OROTP BRALROK OAR TleoOs τ εκααπ-
TeEpo.
46. einer (pro προσαιτῶν vel eraitov) (X)BLAY 892 k and boh
Sod ἐπέ (contra Merx p. 180) but against the rest and against sah.
AT. ἐστιν (post tncous) B 278 Paris*? Sod sah (et syr), contra
ἐξ rell omn et boh latt™.
49, εὐπεν * φωνησατε avtov ( pro evrrev avtov φωνηθηνα) NBCLAY 7
892 Sod" k ὃ and boh only W-H Sod txt, against the rest and
sah specifically and Origen. Here in two places within three
verses we see B with sah and then with boh, as so often.
Instead of a B text governing the joint base of boh sah, it
would appear that B consulted both coptic versions, and
possibly if we had the third coptic version we should see
other points of sympathy there.
xi. 1. βηδφαγη B Cf. sah 1/5 Ruadaxn (sah 4/5 Ruedas)
xii. 19. > καὶ μη adn τεκνν NBCLAY 88 892 Paris” Sod ff, sah
t But pera ray viav αὐτῆς. Only U r, add δυο there.
t See under “ Change of Gender.”
Mark
xi. 27.
35.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 85
[row bok] (syx sin). See remarks above. This order opposes
everything else, and is refused by Soden text. But why?
“πολυ πλανασθε NBCLWAY 892* Sod! “8 ἢ sah boh
against everything else including 33 and Paris” and verss:
“ὑμεῖς ουν πολυ TAavacbe.” Here Sod encloses vues ovy in
square brackets,
. Out of three deliberate and distinct recensions NBLAY 892
(και ev tT διδαχὴ αὐτου ἔλεγεν) follow boh (against sah). So
also Sod txt. See under ‘‘ Two or more recensions in Mark.”
. δεν (—yap) N*BWY soli vid., sah boh syr pesh™4 against
all else and Paris” and syr sin pesh™. Sod [yap]. No new
evidence.
Why should we attribute this to coptic influence and not to
a common base? Because at:
. (S)BL(W)Y (28) elide both copulas ecovras σείσμοι... .ecovtat
λιμοι, Which is simply the coptic manner. It appeals to Soden.
. πεῖς τὴν οἰκιαν NBULYV 245 892 Sod" ck sah boh syr pesh [non
sin]. See under “Improvement.” (This does not appeal to
Soden).
. ἄγγελος (pro ov ἀγγελοι vel οὐ ἀγγέλοι 01) B®! et W-H™*. This
is a very pretty place and one of the few where we can swear
that B saw the coptic and was influenced by it. In the first
place observe that NDKLUW?°S and some twenty-five minus-
cules write οὐ ἀγγέλοι. In the second place note that all the
rest, 2.e. twelve uncials plus W®Y and minn, with sah, write
ot ἀγγέλοι ot. B then did not get this from sah although both
sahidic and bohairic plurals do not change their termination,
and in sak we read οὐδε Harreadcc eTg,it The owae
TiayHpe 6.6. B could not have been copying sah or he would
have seen the et in eT οῖ following, which corresponds to
the οἱ following ἀγγέλοι in most Greeks. What was B doing?
Well it may be that sah influenced bok for a singular, for
boh, instead of sah’s owae NRarreaoc etc, has simply owae
arreaoc Aen τῷε. At any rate B agrees with five or
six codices of the bohairic alone here (with Aug libere).
Whatever may be said of our other examples I pray the gentle
critic and benevolent reader to ponder this very specially. Nor
can it be said to me that these bohairic codices were following
B. I deny it utterly. For in the very next verse B omits καὶ
προσεύχεσθε, which no coptic Mss do. And B is alone here with
Dacdk against all else but one poor little cursive 122 which
stands out thus like a lost sheep, apart from 1 13 28 157 2°° 604
892 Paris” Laura4' which with VY and W goagainst BD here.
Yet W-H om. καὶ προσευχεσθε, and have ayyedos in margin,
Consult xiv. 18 beyond as to coptic methods by B.
(See under “ Improvement.’’)
86
Mark
xiv. 3.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
συντριψασα (—xar) NBLWV boh. All the rest have the copula.
Hven D 2° with καὶ θραυσασα, and syr pesh et aperuit, and sah
ae, yet Sod txt [no new mss] omits καὶ as well as W-H.
7. Ἔπαντοτε in sec loco BUNNY 892 Laura4™ soli cum sah bok.
10.
6 els (pro els) NBC*LMY 892 = boh miowas against sak
(ow&) (But immediately before N*BC*DW?) 13 28 440
Laura“ Orig omit o before ἐσκαριωτης with Latt against
sah and boh.)
18 fin. τῶν εσθιοντων pet ἐμου (pro o ἐσθιων μετ euov) B*! cum sah
20.
boh. [ VonSoden omits boh, but adduces no new Greek evidence].
This, coupled with the places at viii. 37, xiii. 32, noticed
above, is absolutely conclusive that B saw the Coptics. They
alone have the matter thus in the plural. Not one Latin even,
as far as I can see, has manducat. All have the verb in the
singular. And all Greeks, including W and the friendly V,
make no change.
-e« SNBCL et WWI min*"4 et 892 [non 28 non Paris” | sah
boh. The presence of W here (against 28) may be due to
coptic. The other seventeen uncials with all /att (which have
to render ex) and syr oppose with ex.
abid fin. Observe the strange (but for possible support of ΟἿ
21.
24.
35.
40.
50.
Sod 2°*) EICTOENTPYBLION for εἰς τὸ τρυβλιον by B. Tisch
says “εἰς To ev τρυβλιον (sive evtp.)”’ but there is no such word
as evtpuBrtov, The hand which went over B has added a
smooth breathing over ἕν, but Westcott and Hort read it as
ἕν, and actually place this in the text in square brackets.
May it not be due to an error oculi from the coptic column
Hen fxn the ἐν coming directly before το τρυβλίον
there ?
We cannot neglect the possibility of the previous point, when we
see immediately following at the head of this verse the intro-
ductory coptic xe followed by NBLY 892 Paris” only seized
again by Soden’s Alexandrian mind. (W does not have it, yet
it conflates vraye: and παραδιδοται immediately afterwards).
To εκχυννομενον ὑπερ πόλλων NBCL et Ψ 892 (sol. inter
minn) sah boh aeth W-H & Sod tat.
To ὑπερ (vel περὴ πολλὼν εκγυννομενον D unc et ΣΦ minn
omn vid. latt syr.
ἐπίπτεν (pro emerev) NBLY 892 boh [non sah] W-H & Sod
txt. See under ‘‘ Historic present” (imperfect).
> avrav οὐ οφθαλμουι (pro ot off. avtwv) NBCLA οὐ BY Sod
108 115 127 238 e®* 892 Paris” Laura4A! Sod?“ sah boh (more
copt, non “ex more Marci” ut Tisch). Against them are all the
rest and W and the Latins and Syriac. (See below xiv. 65).
For καὶ αφεντες avtov πᾶντες εφυγον of D, most Greeks (syr)
sah and latt (as Matthew), the order is changed by NBCLAYV
B IN ST, MARK’S GOSPEL. 87
61 258 435 892 Paris” Laura’ zser Hser Sod*i4 goth boh to καὶ
adevtes αὑτὸν epvyov martes, adopted by Sod.
It is noteworthy as exhibiting this well-known group of uncials
hanging together with boh against sah.
(For the variations see Horner’s note in sah.) The new ms W is
with D and the mass and sah against bok.
xiv. 60.
61.
65.
ote (pro τι) BWY solt et W-H™ (cf. boh xe)
οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο ovsev NBCLY 33 892 LauraA™ sah both aeth
Orig 1/2 W-H Sod, against οὐδὲν amexp. of the rest and W
Orig 1/2.
Savutov τὸ tpocwrov = NBCLUAY 33 108 127 892 Paris”
Sod™™we copt (See above xiv. 40) Sod follows both here and
above.
68 fin. Om. NBLILWY 892 Paris” Hust 17 ὁ boh sah syr sin [non
69.
xy. 12.
36.
89.
1. 2.
24.
i. 22.
Tisch
Sod]. See under “ Harmonistic.”
evrey (pro npEato Aeyerv) Only B and sah boh aeth W-H™*.
Nothing else. Take a cross reference from this (in Matt. xxvi.
71 λεγε) and see under “ Harmonistic,” and if it does not give
my readers a startling picture of a coptic conspiracy with B
I shall be surprised. In these other places B has some little
support. Here however B is in solitary grandeur with sah
boh aeth and these alone. N deserts him, CLAY desert, W
avoids it, D and all Latins contradict absolutely, and so do
both syriacs. (Soden neglects to chronicle boh and aeth.
This is careless for boh agrees absolutely, and this must be
considered with xv. 15 below.)
- θέλετε See under ‘“‘ Harmonistic.”’
. παρέδωκεν Se τον w deay. B Sod'***and boh alone. See under
“S and B differences’? in Part II for the three
varying orders.
. —mev NBC*LAYV 604 Sod" n boh arm syr sin Cyr™* (against
the rest and sah, all other Latins extant and syr and aeth).
—xat (ante yeutoas) BLY [non minn vid] ὁ (ff2 ἢ vg® boh (sah)
— κραξας NBL et Ψ 892 copt W-H Sod txt. (See
“ Improvement.”)
. +7 (ante wo. μητηρ) BY 181? soli et (sah boh)
Latin and Coptic.
-- eyo BD Sod? 2°° latt sah 3/4
λέγων (—ea) NBDWA Sod 28* 157 372 2° lati syr aeth boh
(hiat sah) [Habent 604 Paris” rell unc et ΣΦ Orig Eus*™ Cyr’
ρηξει (pro pnoce) NBCDI: Sod"? 88 892 20 latt alig et sah
[non boh] W-H tat [non Sod] Cf Luc v. 81
asks if other cursives besides 33 give the future. Apparently
88 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
only 2°* and 892. The rest all have the present, and W gives the passive,
retaining the present tense Ssappyocovrat οὐ acxot.
ar
11. 9. πλοιαρία (pro πλοιαριον)ὺ B cum sah. [Sod omits sah]. I
place this here under Coptic and Latin, because the Latin “ ut
navicula (most omit i) deseruiret’’ may be responsible.
11. 18. τον καναναιον NBCDLA 88 372 2°° Paris®™ Sod! + τα [qt¢
(0 cavaveos ὟΝ = boh trK&maneoc) contra xavavitns sah et
‘Gr rell et Sod 28 157 604 892 etc. arm goth.
6. See under “ Latin.”
9. rey. ονομα pot +eatw B (Ὁ) fam 18 238 372 lati?! sah boh
2. προσμενουσι (— Mot) B*! cum boh*s Cf D wd. εἰσιν et
d ex quo hic sunt.
33. —tw(antewerpo) NBDL 21 only (non al. minn vid) W-H & Sod.
ix. 8. pera εαὐτων post «doy (instead of fin) B 33 Paris” cf and sah
(syr sin) W-H, non Sod.
As it does not appear in Matt. xvii. 8 (except that 33 inserts there)
it may have been early deleted from Mark and then added in the margin
whence B copied into the wrong place, or else may mean sympathy with
sahidic order, but boh keeps the usual order.
x. 28. ηκολουθηκαμεν (pro ἠκολουθησαμε) BCDW Sod'** (Sod™)
lat copt
This follows adyxayev and is probably alliterative as well. If
ηκολουθηκαμεν be “neutral” then all the rest of the Greeks have fallen
into a curious error! Even Soden recognises this.
x. 43. (pr loco) ἐστιν (pro ἐστ) NBC*DLAWY Sod’ it! copt
xi. 17. πεποίηκατε (pro eroncate) BULAY Orig only W-H & Sod txt
xiv. 40. waduv ἔλθων evpev avtovs NBLY 892 copt q [non Sod] |
Kat eMwy evpev avTous Dacd fi k
against ὑπόστρεψας εὑυρεν avTovs παλιν W rell pl.
txv. 1. wpa NBCDL et VI Sod 46 892 Sod'**" 2°* laté boh Orig
[for ewe to mpar g A unc! et ὟΣ minn et 604 Paris” syr arm
goth W-H & Sod (k* e mane) }
Sah aeth and e = cum autem mane factum esset
8. avaBas NBD 892 latt copt goth, against avaBoncas of the
rest and even A®I,W and W all minn (but 892), syr arm and
diatess, while k omits, and aeth conflates.
Traces of Syriac.
iii. 17. ονομα (pro ovopata) BD* 28 225 271 syr (boh™) W-H
[non Sod] ἢ
iv, 20. --εν 866 et tert B" cum δ (Cf syr pesh, hiat sin)
22 fin. φανερωθη B et (sah syr pesh)
v. 2. —evdews BW Sod [non ND d reil] sed
syrbesh sin ners 1/2 et ὃ ὁ 6 fot vg®
+t Tisch omits the evidence of 2°°. } Cf. Merz, pp. 40, 41.
Mark |
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 89
. ἐστιν trsfert post cous B cum 273 Sod¥® Paris” syr pesh
syr sin (et sah)
. μαριαμ ἡ μαγδ. BOWYW fam 1 syr W-H [non Sod].
Form.
88. εξηλθον NBC: Sod 33 179 Paris Sod’ et Sod txt. Al.
iii. 25,
ni, 12.
et D& εξεληλυθα, vel ἐλήλυθα WAG! 28 892 al. et latt et d.
. This is followed by nev pro nv by NBL Sod? 892 [not even
88 or Paris®’] sah bot aeth against all else and the other syr
arm goth versions, which are solid for nv. To show that this
is coptic reaction consider the unique κηρυσσιν of δὲ following
(for xnpyccwv)=boh. But Soden swallows ηλθεν as W-H.
. duvn (pro Suvaca:) B. This presupposes that every other
Greek has changed δυνὴ or Ά δυνα to δυνασαι. Soden’s
sympathetic Sinai mss do not join. See below, ix. 22/23.
στηναι (pro σταθηνα) BL 892 Paris” and so W-H Sod ἐπέ,
but apparently no other support.
. otnvat NBC: Sod 213 892 and W-H Sod (om claus στηναι
...ornvat Paris® ex homoiotel.)
. παρατιθωσν ®*BLM*WATI Sod et txt, παραθωσιν D rell.
. THPNTE B Evst 15 (pro τηρησητε); στησητε D alig.
. ηδυνασθη NB only with Sod™ for ηδυνηθη.
. παρατιθωσι NBCLMA 372 892 al®* Sod txt (rell wapadwor)
. εὐπὰ NBFLWY 209 W-H & Sod (evo rell et Paris’)
. duvn pro δυνασαι bis See under “ Change of Mood.”
. δυνομεθα B
, κατεέσθοντες B (Cf Lue vii. 38)
. ἐπεβαλαν NB
. eyyapevovow (pro ayyapevovow) N*B* scr? [non W-H Sod]
(Ὁ has avyap... here). This is almost purely a N.T. word.
Only δὲ at Matt. v. 41 changes to evyap. At Matt. xxvii. 82
nyyapeveayr is used by all (including NB) except Ὁ nvyap..., L
nyap., and some min nyxap. It does not occur outside of these
three passages.
Synonyms.
ἐμπροσθεν (pro evavtiov) NBLW 187 mg 604 892 Paris”
only, while ἐνωπίον is read by Θ' ᾧ Sod*+ ὃ 28 33 511 Hust 29
Laura‘ 193, and ἐναντίον by the mass and Ὁ. (εμπροσθεν ἐναντίον
Sod"),
If the original Latin coram is primitive and antecedent it will
account for this more clearly than any “provincial” preferences.
Here coram is absolutely constant in all Latins.. But observe
90 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
elsewhere what happens when the Greek is paramount (this list is
quite imperfect) :
Luke v.19. Gr. ἐμπρροσθεν ante lati! et vg, coram ὃ, in con-
spectu a ἃ
Kili. 8. εμπροσθεν coram laté" et vg, in conspectu ὦ
9. ενωπίον vel ἐεμπτροσθεν D al. coram Jatt, in conspectu d
xiv. 2. ἐμπροσθεν avrou ante illum /até, apud ipsum 6, pre-
sente illo ὃ, in conspectu ejus ὦ
xix. 4, εἰς To εμπτροσθεν Variant plur latt
27. ἐμπροσθεν μου ante me lati?! ef vg, coram me 6, in
conspectu meo ὦ ὦ
xxi. 86. ἐμπροσθεν του viov Tov avyou ante fil. hom. laté! vg, in con-
spectu fili hom. d f
Jo. x. 4. ἐμπροσθεν avtwy πορευεται ante eas vadit lait" et vg, coram eas
vadit 5, praecedit eas r
xii. 87. ἐμπροσθεν αυτων coram eis laté®' et vg, in conspectu
eorum df (r)
Lukei. 6. εναντίον (vel ενωπιον) ante laté' et vg, ante faciem 6, in
conspectu ὦ f Hier
xxiv. 19. ἐναντίον (ενωπίον D) coram latt?'etvg,inconspectucde Aug
Act vii.10. ἐναντίον (vel evaytt) in conspectu latt! et vg, ante gig,
coram d
vill. 82. ἐναντίον coram laté®' et vg, ante Iren 1/2 Tert,
in conspectu Jren 1/2
Lukei. 15. ενωπίον coram laté?' et vg,in conspectu a dIren
17. ενωπίον ante ἰαΐέξ' et vg, in conspectu, a d
Iren Ambr, coram Tert
19. ενωπίον ante lati" et vg, in conspectu a df,
om ff.
This will be sufficient without going further to show what I mean.
But I do not know whether I have made the matter clear. The point is
that an original Latin coram in Mark ii. 12 may have given rise to the
two Greek readings, while coram is constant among the Latins. But in
the other Gospels and Acts the Greek rarely varies whereas two or three
varieties are to be observed among the Latins throughout.
Note also :
Mark xii. 41. awevavts BUY 33 Paris” Sod" xarevayts SD unc et ΣΦ
(κατενωπιον 138-346-556.)
and ver. 36. νποκατω (pro ὑποποδιον)ὺ BDF T4WY 28 Sod" sah boh syr sin
utrotrodtov NS rell et tet d et rell verss et LXX.
This is quite an important place. For B makes several other
changes in this verse. It omits ev before τω mvevpati, omits o before
κυριος, and substitutes alone καθισον for xafov. Hort makes a positive
caricature of the LXX quotation, following B even to the placing of B’s
unique κάθισον in his margin.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 91
urocatw here is read in Matt., but vromodcov by Luke and the LXX
and by all Latins in Mark.
Mark
xv. 46. μνηματι (pro μνημειὼ) NB, contra rell omn et ἊΝ ΣΨ minn,
(Xvl. 2. μνημα (pro μνημειν)ὺ NC (W 2°) Hes™, contra rell omn,
cf v. 3)
Omission from Homoioteleuton.
Mark
xv. 10 fin. —ov apyvepees 1 [non fam] 115 349 Paris” [non 892]
Sod?? 3371225 Hyst 18 47 syr sin boh [non sah].
This is clearly an error from the repetition of the words at the
beginning of the next verse. We have a nice check here of sah against
boh, pesh against sin [hiat cu] and W (besides all the other uncials)
against B. W is so extremely friendly to B otherwise (and in this
neighbourhood) that to me its witness is conclusive for the words,
although they are put into square brackets by W-H. But this may be
due to the omission in Matt. xxvii. 18.
Mark
viii. 17. ~ere by no less than NBCD“LNWA®®S, Sod™ fam 1 28 33 124
[non rel fam 13] 225 245 2° [non 604] Paris®’ 892* a sah boh arm aeth
[non syr sin pesh diatess non reli latt]
This occurs from CYNIETEETINEMWPWMENHN and I claim that the
omission is an error on the part of all these authorities, including B, for ὦ
goes against Ὁ, ὃ goes against A, and syr sin with the other Latins
witnesses against the Coptic.
The opposite side of the picture is seen immediately after at
Mark
‘viii. 19, where 28 with fam 13 99 Sod?’ and b ὁ d ff i k add ous after
ἄρτους (APTOYC OYC €KAACA) against all the Greek uncials [except Ὁ
“ous” borrowing from Latin]. These errors control themselves when we
balance the evidence properly.
Cf viii. 14 +quem post panem latt, but no Greeks which we know have
APTONON. :
xii. 86. —ev (post evrev) B®! cwm 273 et Sod (teste Sod contra ed.
Beermann & Gregory).
GRAMMATICAL CHANGES.
Change of Voice.
There is nothing surprising in attributing the changes of voice to
Alexandrian revision. Observe how the ms W acts at times, 6 4. in the
matter of the sons of Zebedee at Mark x. 85 where we are to read
attnowpmeba instead of αὐτησωμεν B etc. (artnoopev N° [δξ omits clause |
A, or epwrnowpev D 1, 2°°), or at vi. 20 ἡπορειτο W instead of the yropes
of NBL (and ezrovec D reli). In these places W stands quite alone.
vi. 27. eveyxas NBCA*® 892 copt (active) for eveyOnvac (passive) of
DW and Τὶ and all the rest and Latt adferri (Ὁ auferri).
92
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
As bearing on this matter of voices, perhaps it has something to do
with retranslation. Observe that at Mark xiv. 14 for φάγω, DW 1-209
fam 13 have gayoua and G 28 118 346 φάγωμαι.
In St.
Luke (xxii. 11) all have φαγω without change.
In St. Matthew xxvi. 18 the expression is mow (ποιήσω Ὁ d ἢ
Orig. Cf. sah. It is impossible to divorce D from a coptic background).
Mark
iv. 29.
xiv. 10.
11.
viii. 37.
ix. 80.
v. 48.
Change of Mood.
παραδοι (pro παραδω) N*BDA Sod 28 2° [non W]
(observe variations in dof mss here)
παραδοι (pro παραδω) BC*?W 28 (Ὁ προδοὴ
(observe variations in sah mss here)
παραδοι ( pro παραδω) BDW
In these passages in ch. iv. and xiv. the sense is different, so
that the change is purely that of the grammarian.
In the first case in ch. iv. it is oray δὲ παραδοι ο καρπος,
in the second and third in ch. xiv. wa avrov παραδοι αντοις (of
Judas), and αὐτὸν εὐκαίρως παραδοι.
bot (prodwce) N*Band W-H tzt while X°L: and Sod tat
write de.
The sentence is (7) te yap δωσει (or δὼ or S01) avos avTad-
Aaya τῆς ψυχῆς avToU ;
The Latins support doce: with dabit. The sah and boh are
equally emphatic with a future indicative.
Itremains for N°L Sod to give the subj.andX*B W-H theopta-
tive against Origen. Whois revising here? [See forachange
in the context under “ Infinitive for the cay construction.”
vot (pro γνω) by NBDLC (cf sah) apparently no cursives, not
even 892 Paris®? nor 28 (me teste) nor 205, which have
mapadot above at iv. 29. Surely this would not have been
changed to yvw, if yvot were original. W does not join here
but does at xiv. 10,11. Lake prints γνῷ for V.
yvou for yo by ABDLW Paris [not 28 or others]. Westcott
and Hort (ii. 168) treat this termination οὐ for @ as conjunctive
not optative, but see Moulton’s Winer, edition 1882, p. 360,
note 2. And consult further: Luke i. 62 θέλοι, Mark xi. 14
φαγοι, Act xxv. 16 εχοι. .Aa Bor, Act ii. 12 θέλοι (NE rell ; θελει
ABCD), xvii. 18 θέλοι (all except D* θέλη, four cursives Gere).
Also: Act xxii. 24 ἐπύγνω by all. And finally: 1 Thess v. 15
atrodot N*D° (D* etiam «ποδοιηὴ FG
atrobw NABD°EKLP al. et Patres
Also note Luke i. 4 of Theophilus wa εἐπύγνοις by N* alone.
See Sir John Hawkins (‘Horae Syn.’ Ὁ. 53)...‘ It is well
known that the optative was obsolescent in the ordinary Greek
of N.T. times.” Therefcre is it not “revived” by B? Note
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 93
also Luke xix. 15. yvou (pro yuo) NBDL 88 (against Origen).
It should be observed that in this same verse NBDL 1-131 25
157 employ δεδωκει for edwxe and Origen εδεδωκει, as if gram-
matical consideration had obtained here.t This is further
emphasised by a complete change from tis te διεπραγματευσατο
to τι διεπραγματεύσαντο by NB(D)L(R)3A 157 ὦ ὁ copt aeth
Τὰς (syr) in the same verse. f
(ix. 22. εἰ τι δυνθλ, «=NBDILAWYW Sod fam 1 273 [non 28 hoe loco.
Errat Tisch] pro ev τι δυνασαι rell ommn.
23. τὸ εἰ δυινη = =09N* BD(— το Ὁ Sod”°)NAW (τουτο pro ro ut copt)
= Sod fam 1 28(— ro 28) 892 pro το εἰ δυνασαι rell omn et V
[om το KUTI®] )
But this dvvy may be merely a change of ‘‘form”’ of the indicative,
and not the subjunctive.
Anyway W shows consideration by having dvvn ver 22 with the
minority, but not in verse 23,t while Paris” retains dvvaca: in both places
and is unfaithful here to NB. Fam 18 also holds dvvaca: in both places.
We cannot judge of singular places like this without a correct
tabulation. For instance Tischendorf makes no cross-reference here to
Mark i. 40, but if we turn back there we find B indulging in δυνὴ for
δυνασαι at that place and quite alone! Comment is unnecessary. With B it
is simply a preference.
Change of Tense.
1. 82. εδυσεν (pro εδυ) BD 28 Sod®™# [non Sod] W-H. 1st
aorist for 2nd aor.
ii. δ. αφιενται (pro αφεωνταὴ B 28 88 2°° [non 604 Paris® | 22?! syr
goth sah boh against the rest and W2® reid and ὃ } q.
9. apuevtas NB 28 2° boh (remittuntur ac ef 55 ff 4) against
agewvrat of the rest and ὦ (remissa sunt). Cf sah “Thy sins
will be forgiven thee,” showing Egyptian consideration of this
passage. W-H and Soden follow NB.
22. ρηξει (pro ρησσει) See under “ Latin and Coptic.”’
iv. 1. συνάγεται (pro συνηχθὴ) NBCLA fam 18 28 604 892 Sod
(fam 1 cuvepyerat) against συνηχθη of the mass (and συνηχθησαν
A etc.) and the versions. W-H and Soden print συναγεται.
vi. 22. nperev (pro Kat ἀρεσασης) NBC*L(A) 88 ὁ ff copt. This
should probably come under ‘‘ Coptic.” It is rejected by Soden“.
viii. 25. ἐνεβλεπεν (pro eveBre ev) NBL 28 273 (WA fam 13 244 440
syrrinty,
Here we get an expressive imperfect (Alexandrian ? Note X*
was corrected to it) and very unlikely to be dropped by the
mass if it stood originally in the text. Soden accepts it.
+ So Soden'*t; while neglecting yvo: and all previous optatives. Is it consistent?
t Thus reversing the attitude of 28, which latter would seem the more correct.
94 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Change of Tense in participles.
me iv. 18. ἀκούσαντες (pro axovovres) NBCDLA Sod 1 10 fam 13 28
71 240 244 892 2°¢ LauraA!™ [non Paris®”] Sod? 1° sqysch pesh
copt, against rest and Latin arm and aeth. As regards
possible Egyptian influence there is very little difference in the
writing of the two forms. Soden accepis ἀκουσαντες.
[x.17. γονυπετων Ὁ 28 fam 13, geniculans latt (praeter a = genibus
prostratus)
γονυπετησας Rell et W (et W-H Sod).]
Thus W™! at ix. 8 περιβλεπομενοι (circumspicientes lati?! for
περιβλεψαμενοι rell and circumspexerunt ἢ).
Imperative.
Mark ii. 9. eyespou Bi Sod 28 372, eyetpe ND plur and W (εγειραι al.)
(In. 11. 11. eyeepe NBW Sod plur, eyerpas some, and εγείρον K)
(Consult also: vi. 22. αὐτῆσον B plur, but αἰτησαι δὲ 2°° Hust 54 and
aitnoe ΝΣ, ετησαι W).
xii. 86. καθισον (pro xa$ov) B alone. In this connection observe
the other changes in this verse by B, not only slavishly
followed by Hort against the usual LXX text, but καθισον
placed in Hort’s margin.
Infinitive for the eav construction.
viii. 86. ‘Te yap wdernoes (wperet) avOpwrov eav κερδηση (κερδησει)
Tov κοσμον ολον καὶ ξημιω θη τὴν ψύυχην avtov.”
Here Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort and the Eng. Revision substitute
the infinitive κερδησαι (with SB 892, L κερδησας) for εαν xepd., and
ξημιωώθηναι (with NBL 892) for ξημιωθη. Soden refuses this change.
Winer is silent. I ask can it be possible that NBL (against DW, the
rest of the uncials and all the minuscules, against the Coptic and the
Syriac, against the Gothic and all Latins) are really here the purveyors of
a ‘‘pre-syrian” text? Or is it not an Alexandrian Greek preference and
not even “ neutral” ?
Note that it is immediately following this (Mark viii. 87) that N*B
alone use δου for δωσει (N°: Sw). [See above under “ Optative.”]
Note that the new witness W, in close agreement with B on both
sides of this passage, yet knows nothing of these infinitives.
As a matter of fact δὲ goes quite wrong here for he has already
substituted ἀνθρωπος (for avOpwrov) previously with coptic, making it the
subject of ὠφέλει and not dependent on it. Thus: τὸ yap ὠφέλει ανθρωπος
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 95
xepdnoas is clearly not good. τι yap where ἀνθρωπον κερδησαι of BL will
stand, but since coptic says Te yap avOpwrros ὠφελησει it follows with the
eay construction.
Let us examine further now Grammatical forms: Change of case.
Genitive Absolute for Dative.
Mark νυ. 2. εξελθοντος αὐτου (pro εξέλθοντε αὐτω of the mass) NBCLA
Sod some twenty cursives of the same type and 892 Paris®’.
This seems to aim at improvement, but D is absent writing
εξέλθοντων avtav withede ff and W*. Soden follows NBCLA.
That B had considered this matter is seen elsewhere, for at vi. 54 B
alone cancels αὐτῶν in καὶ εξέλθοντων avtwy (not approved by Hort).
Genitive Absolute for Accus. Abs.
Mark ix. 28. εἰσέλθοντος αὐτου (pro εἰσέλθοντα avrov) with NBCDLAWY
Sod fam 1 fam 13 28 2°° 604 892 [non 33 Paris*"] W-H & Sod
(it vg cum intrass et)
Here again this seems grammatical preference, and very questionable
at that, seeing that it is a question of motion :} καὶ εἰσέλθοντα αὐτὸν εἰς
οἶκον οὐ μαθηταῖι αὐτου κατιδιαν ETNPOTWY AUTOY.
These cases in Mark must however be treated differently from those
in the other Gospels. If it be a case of translation from Latin, it would
not be “Egypt” or “ Antioch” preferring genitive or accusative absolute,
and changing an existing foundation Greek text, as much as two separate
lines of translation appearing. (See remarks under this head in
St. Luke.)
Change of Case.
Mark vi. 3. wwonrtos (pro wwon) BDLA Sod™ fam 13 33 2° 604 Paris®”
ad boh W-H ὦ Sod“ [non sah].
The sentence runs οὐχ ovtos ἐστίν o TexTwy ο vios (OY ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος
wos) [της] paptas καὶ adeAos taxwBov καὶ twanTos Kat Lovda Kat σίμωνος ;
This has a double significance. If it is a genitive for the apparent
indeclinable swan (or wond, as N 121, many latins, vg and aeth have it) it
18. a grammatical improvement to agree with ἑακωβον and σίμωνος, but
while sak has «Αἴ wwocn, 002 writes meas τς τος “ with (and)
Tosetos,” as if doh had copied a text similar to that of BDLA, or they in
turn had wandered to the boh and thought it a good idea seeing went oc
to decline sworn and make a genitive of it. AnyhowI do not believe
twontos to be ‘neutral,’ but to stand at the opposite pole. NS, very
t But St. Luke adopts the gen. abs. for this at ii. 42 καὶ ore ἐγένετο erway δωδεκα
αναβαινοντων αντῶν κατα To εθος τῆς εορτης.
96 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
useful as a control in this and many places, disagrees as above, while
892 writes wwon.
Change of Number.
Mark i. 36. κατεδίωξεν (pro κατεδιωξα) NBMU Sod 28 273 2° 604
al’ t σε τε vg and 8, as to “αὐτὸν Σίμων καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ avtov.”
To this W does not agree but, with 2®D and all the rest of
the uncials and Paris” syr, gives us κατεδιωξαν, as also all
other Old Latins and vg", These are not really vulgates,
but Old Latin in Mark as well as in Matthew.
St. Jerome followed the NB reading, no doubt for the same
preference. Soden retains κατεδιωξαν.
iv. 1 fin. ησαν (pro nv) NBCLA® 7" 7 892 Sod” d [contra ὃ erat
et D& nv]. This not only seems a pure “Egyptian” prefer-
ence after πᾶς ὁ οχλος, but is opposed by all other Greeks and
W and all the Latins but d, which is here aberrant since
the other Latin company deserts it exceptionally in this place.
Soden reverses his position and adopts noav.
v. 18. εἰσῆλθεν (pro εἰσηλθον) of τα πνευματα ta ἀκάθαρτα B against
the rest, and exceptional on the part of B. (W is emphatic
against B with the contemporary form eon) Oar.)
Particular use :
Mark xiii. 3. ewnpwra(proemnpwrav) NBLW 4 13-69-346-556 [non 124] 28
33 49 229 348 892 Paris®” Sod!?°6 1250 (eqnpwrncev™) (δ 14 sahatiay
This makes Peter the spokesman, and looks very like revision [see
above on i. 86]. The sentence is: καὶ καθημένου αὐτου εἰς To opos των
ἐλαίων κατέναντι Tov ἱερὸν ἐπηρωτων (ernpwra NBUW) αὐτὸν κατιδιαν
TETPOS Και ιακωβος Καὶ LWAVYNS Και avdpeas €LTTE μιν. ..
The Latins and syr arm aeth all oppose NBLW, the Coptic mss
are divided and this small Greek group seems to be forcing the matter
on Peter, because in the parallels there is absolutely no trace of this.
Matt. xxiv. 3 is καθημένου Se αὐτου emt του opovs τῶν ἔλαίων προσηλθον
αὐτὼ οἱ μαθηται Katibiay λεγοντες εἰπε nuw...and Luke xxi. 7
εἐπηρωτησαν δὲ avroy λέγοντες διδασκαλε ποτε ovy TavTa cota...
Soden follows Hort however and accepts exnpwra here in Mark.
Plural for Singular.
Mark iii. 35. ta θέληματα B quite alone (and W-H mg) for το θέλημα
of apparently all others. Can it be supposed for a moment
that B represents the foundation text here against all else ?
“ca θεληματα tov θεου᾽" grates very harshly on the ear.
(Here again in a graeco-sah the change of the letter πὶ to πὶ
t 15 40 58 236 237 252 259 273 488 Hust 53 259.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 97
makes the difference of the plural without change of the
noun’s termination). Sod cannot find a single witness for B.
δὲ at Matt. vii. 21 has the plural alone against B and the rest,
In the whole range of N.T. writings ro θέλημα is essentially
Matthaean Marcan Lucan Pauline Petrine and Johannine as well as
being the expression of our Lord. The singular occurs 58 times. Only
once a plural form (Acts xiii. 22, being an O.T. quotation of David).
Mark vii. 28. ἐσθιουσιν (pro εσθιει) following κυναρια. So NBDLWA
Sod*** and some cursives and 892 Paris” against the rest.
(At another place like Mark xiv. 27 following mpo8ara the uncials
are more evenly divided, but the same group as above less W and
+ ACFGKN adopt the plural.)
Mark ix. 15. ἐδοντες (pro dav) NBC(D)IL WAY 113 28 33892
εξεθαμβηθησαν (pro εξεθαμβηθη) i Paris” Sod" syr gothabed ffi
following πὰς ὁ ὀχλος.
The question is Who made the change? Soden follows Hort.
Plural for Singular. [Not grammatical in the previous sense. |
Mark viii. 22. epyovtas (pro epyerar) NBCDLWA Sod a few cursives
copt aeth arm goth it vg, changing the sense against N*
the rest of Greeks and syrr diatess.
The sentence is :
καὶ epxetat (or epxovtar) εἰς βηθσαιδαν καὶ φερουσιν avtw
τυῴφλον καὶ παρακαάλουν αυτον...
Does it not seem that the “neutral” text (as opposed by N* and
sy77r) is in danger of being accused of harmonising epyovras with φερουσιν,
for which there can be no adequate reason.
Why should the Sy77 oppose the Latins here? There is a curious
method in these things. Soden adopts epxovras.
Again
BEGINS Τὰν BMC OUT ES DTG a NBL WAY 892 k arm. Soden rejects this.
edov ,»» δὲν
88. ηλθον (pro ηλθεν) δὲ ΒΟΟΣ) 1 etc 2°° Sod** tt syr pesh diatess
sah (not syr sin boh which go with the large majority)
Here 7A Gov is the harder reading, for the sentence is:
καὶ ηλθον εἰς καφαρναουμ Kat εν TH οἰκια YEVOMEVOS ἐπηρωτα
αυτους.
Pessibly here NBDW are right (but Soden rejects). They have the
support of dat and syr vg diatess sah, so that syr sin and δον may be
wrong here.
In Evan 28 the text is ηλθεν, but in the margin the chapter inserter
has written τω καίρω εκείνω ἤλθεν o imoouvs καὶ ov μαθηται auto
εἰς καπερναουμ.
Therefore the Church lesson may on the other hand have given rise
to ηλθον.
H
98 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Change of Gender.
Mark x. 80. Ζωην αἰωνίαν (pro Swnv awviov) B
This is not exactly a change of gender, but merely the emphatic
form of the feminine. I have been curious enough to go through
every other passage where αἰωνίος is involved. The result is that
in the Gospels nowhere else does B change αἰωνίον to αἰωνίαν, not
even with κολασις at Matt. xxv. 46, nor does B modify “tas αἰωνίους
oxnvas”’ at Luke xvi. 9. In the rest of the New Testament, of the
many places involving ἕωην αἰώνιον, B changes to αἰωνίαν only at
Acts xiii. 48 and at 1 Jo. ii. 25 την Sony την αἰωνίαν [not at 1 Jo. 1. 2,
iii. 15, v. 11, 18].
For the rest, at 2 Thess. ii. 16 παρακλησιν away is read by all
except FG aviv.
At ἃ Pet.i.11 C* 42 read εἰς την αἰωνίαν βασιλείαν, but B and the
rest aiwvtov.
At 2 Cor. v. 1 all hold aswov although following two feminine
nouns: οἰκοδομὴν. . «οἰκίαν χειροποίητον αἰωνιον.
So that there is no rule guiding B or the others, only an occasional
preference.
At Hebrews ix. 12 αἰωνίαν λυτρωσιν seems to be read by all, but
αἰωνίον is not modified elsewhere in Hebrews, while at 1 Peter v. 10
εἰς τὴν αἰωνίον αὐτοῦ δοξαν is read by all and not αἰωνίαν as we might
expect of B.
Mk. xiv.8. Common text and GMW® min to ἀλαβαστρον (in see loco) ;
N*ADEFHKSUVW°XY"8PASTIA τὸν ara®. but ΒΤ ΔΨ
Paris” τὴν araB.
The Greeks made alabaster masc. or fem. (Liddell and
Scott), Herodotus using the masc. and Plato the fem. article.
Perhaps there was a difference in the use to which the
word was put. In the parallels and above in this verse
no article is used. It certainly looks as if B and com-
panions had wished to show their grammatical instinct and
had made a change here, for δὲ has tov, and only &° brings
his text into conformity with B. As to W, it with ® (and
GM reported by Tisch.) has to. ΝΥ does not even agree with
28, the latter having τον.
Change of Order.
As to Order consult
Matt. v. 4/5, where for μακαρίοι οὐ πραεῖς, to come before μακαρίοι οἱ
mevOovrres, D 88 α ὁ fi σι ἢ" kl vg syr cw witness with Clem
Origen (specifically, see Treg ‘ Printed Text,’ p. 187) Nyss Bas
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 99
Hil and the Eusebian canons, while &B and the rest, with
b fq syr sin pesh copt arm aeth and Tert, followed by W-H,
put πεένθουντες first. [Sod errs as to A and 604.]
The question is whether this is scientific. If W-H want Origen’s
text, he is a witness here against them and supported by the section
_ authority of Hus Am. This passage was omitted from consideration in
its proper place. Now as to St. Mark observe:
Mark ii. 10. advevar apaptias ert τῆς yns ΒΦ Sod’? 142 157 273 αἱ aeth W-H
against ad. em τῆς γῆς apf. A ete. (et Sod txt)
ἐπι τῆς γῆς ad. ap. ἃς Τὸ mult et verss
and — επι τῆς γῆς Wbog
Probably B omitted and found ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς in his margin, adding
afterwards. At any rate W points this way, as that Greek ms now
comes to join the Latin b-g for omission of em τῆς γῆς.
An exceedingly useful commentary on this supposition is offered in
the very next verse but one. Instead of καὶ ἡγερθη ευθεως καὶ apas Tov κραβ.
of most Mss and versions, NBC*L 33 and four boh Mss (arm?) say καὶ
nyepOn καὶ εὐθυς apas Tov κραβ. which is not the same thing at all. Now
evOvs is omitted outright by b ὁ e ff g, and the new Greek ms W not only
comes to join them but gives the Greek in the Latin form of 6 q as ille
autem surgens tulit by writing: o de eyepOers καὶ apas... Probably again
here NB took evéus from the margin of their exemplar and slipped it in
the wrong place. W-H and Soden follow NBCL.
Mark v. 25. Swdexa ern (pro etn dwbexa) NBCLAW fam 1 [non 118] 28
fam 18 Paris” 892 αἱ. perpaue and Coptic W-H & Sod txt,
not syr nor lat.
This needs no comment.
vi. 2. »διδασκειν ev tn συναγωγὴ NBCDLA Sod al? 88 892 709
Paris” df fz (r) sah boh aeth syr arm. Contra rell omn et W
et latt et goth.
I am convinced that the change of order is an improvement and
wrong, although D ὦ ἢ ff, join 8B here for it. The other Latins (which
from v. 40 to v. 43 hung absolutely together) oppose and have the
support of W plus eleven uncials and ΣΦ and 1 18 28 2"° 604. Besides
goth opposes and neutralises f here, as W ὁ neutralise Dd. Itis doubtless
the Egyptian order to which D d have been accommodated in this place.
Sod rejects, and most unscientifically, having followed the group at v. 25.
Mk. vi. 26. > αἀθετησαι αὐτὴν NBCLNA® Sod®° 179 Sod*! 4! 892 against
DW and all the rest and the Latin order αὐτὴν αθετησαι (om
αὐτὴν 69 265 Sod* ¢ syr sin) Sod again stultifies his method
by following NB etc.
49. Ὁ ἐπι τῆς Our. περίπατουυτα ~=NBLA Sod”?! 33 892 Paris’
co syr sin (of Matt. xiv. 26) W-H ἃ Sod against DW and all
the rest and against the order of the versions, including Coptic.
It might be thought that NBLA were original and “neutral” here
(obs. syr sin), but why should all the rest change? Further, observe that
H 2
100 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
immediately following, the same group NBLA 33 892 Paris” (without 2°°
604 al.) change φαντασμα εἰναι to ott φαντασμα εστιν with coptt (Gf syr).
Both changes cannot be right. The latter (if not the former) seems
a clear theft from Matthew. It is rejected by Soden.
Mk. vii. 5. > ov περιπατουσιν ot μαθηταί cov NBLA 33 179 892 Paris”
Sod"* Evst 49 boh aeth, against sah all the other Greeks and
DW and lait syr arm goth. There can be no question here but
that the same vicious little group is wrong, yet Soden follows.
Not only does sah oppose, but all the Latins and DW and the
other important minuscules. Tisch merely quotes ‘“ copt”
for the change. "We know now that it is boh and not sah.
27. >Tow κυναρίοις βαλειν NB Sod fam 1 28 [non W] 892
Sod'#35 3 Hyst 49 150 g against >Sad. τοῖς κυν. everything else
and D and W and all Jatt (but 4) and copt syr. Even Paris”
opposes NB here. It is nothing but an “improvement” on
their part yet Soden follows !
Here there is not agreement with Coptic or Latin order (except 4)
so that there must be another reason for it. The fact that the Latins
and copts put the βαλεῖν ahead of τοῖς κυναριοις does not lend colour to a
“neutral” order here. It would seem like an Alexandrian preference
and rounds out the sentence better. Besides when W and 28 oppose
each other it is always wise to go carefully. Here the younger codex
goes with NB against the one which is a contemporary of NB.
Vii. 29. >ex τῆς θυγατρος cov To δαίμονιον NBLA Sod 892 Laura‘
Sod boh*et W-H Sod tat (contra sah et rell omn et DW verss).
ix. 1. A small matter. Practically all Greek authorities write:
ort εἰσὲ τίνες των ὧδε ἐεστηκοτων While B(D*) says ote εἰσί
τινες ὧδε των εστηκοτων, refusing to separate the article
from ἐστηκοτων. W-H follow this without marginal comment,
so that it evidently commended itself strongly to them. So
do Tisch Treg (cf. latt) not Soden. But why should all other
Greeks oppose B if B be right here? Is it not more like
the grammatical preference of a purist ?
xii. 19. See under ‘‘ Coptic.”
xiii. 10. > mpwrov Sec (pro Se πρωτον NBDs¥ 28 299 892 LauraA "θὲ
Sod™ Evst 53 al. pauc.anlvg W-H & Sod tat.
and mpwrov de det W Sod 108 115 124 [non
157 errat Birch] 2°° al. pauc. ὁ ἃ ff2 92 1 (k) 7 sah.
This is bound up with a matter of punctuation as to whether the
first part of verse 10 belongs to verse 9. It has led to sah and syr pesh
[not six] transferring εἰς mavta ta εθνη to the end of verse 10, and to
a very curious conflation in D d ff, gz, where holding καὶ εἰς ravta εθνη
at the beginning they add ev πασι τοῖς εθνεσιν at the end.
That a do not do this proves once more that this happened in D ὦ
t Which Tisch omits,
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 101
after the old base (which a 2 used) had been modified. Observe W here
has a space before πρωτον Se δει (W alone now comes to join a very small
group) definitely reporting back καὶ εἰς mavta ta εθνη to verse 9. As 28
only has πρωτον Se with NBDYV it looks as if the 28 base were older
than W and that the parent of W had inserted δὲ in order to make this
matter of punctuation secure, after the NBD type had changed Set πρωτον
to mpwrov Set.
Birch has erred as to 157 reading πρωτον δὲ Se. Correct Tischendorf
and Horner. 157 reads det πρωτον.
N* really reads mpwrov (or mpwtos) Aaov de which Tisch does not
refer to in his edition of the N.T. [Paris*’ has See rpwrov. |
xiv. 64. αὑτὸν evoyov ewat (pro avtov ewat evoyov) NBCLAY 33 892
Paris” Sod'™* et Sod** 1 q. This seems to be in the nature of
improvement. D ὦ ff, omit evar; LauraA™ places it last.
W goes with the majority of Greeks and Latins for
elvat ἐνοχον.
65. This is followed by > αὐτου to πρόσωπον NBCLUAYV 33
108 127 892 Paris” Sod'** e¢ Sod bringing the possessive first
as Coptic. The usual conspirators remain well together here,
only joined by U 108 127; W and the rest are against it.
Observe 108 127 do the same at xiv. 40.
67. See under ‘‘ Differences between δὲ and B”’ no less than seven
differing orders. Of these BCLYW Sod®® 892 alone cling
together for peta του val. ησθα του νησου. which, instead of being
neutral and basic (as Hort (ὦ Soden would have us believe by
using this order in their texts without marginal comment), is
opposed by all others, thus: 33 remaining alone with sah doh,
ἀξ alone with both syriacs, W with fam 1, 2°¢ and 604, while
the large groups are represented by DA and all Latins, and
AN unc” on the other hand. But in this division none place
tou inoou last! Husebius is extant and he goes with Paris**
and DA latt practically, although having ἧς with W fam
1 2.8 604. It must be an “improvement” by BCLY 892,
Historic Present.
See lists in Hawkins, ‘ Horae Syn.’ p. 144/149. There is a difficult
place in
Mark xi. 7 where N*CW Sod fam 1 including 91-299 fam 18 28 Sod}?
substitute ayovow for the nyayov of most (= Matt. Luke),
while ΒΝ Δ 892 Laura‘? Orig., holding the present,
substitute φερουσιν as W-H Sod tat. [D = nyayor.]
These groups come togethcr in the same verse (+D) for em-
Baddovow instead of ereBadov.
Are these authorities forcing an historic present on Mark, or do they
represent the real ‘‘ neutral” text here? The only commentary offered
102 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
is at the close of the verse, where καθιζει is substituted for εκαθισεν
but only by D® (ὦ sedebat) W fam 1 28 91 241 2° (Cronin) 604.
Here W 28 conspire to indicate a completer revision, while D
remains composite: ἡγαγον. . «επιβαλλουσιν. .. καθέξει.
At the close of the verse NBCDLA Sod min” W-H Sod substitute
er αὐτὸν for em avtw of all the rest (including W and 28). While in the
next verse WD 28 and two of the cursives (2° 604) which wrote er’ αὐτὸν
conspire to substitute with the Latins ἐστρωννυον for ectpwcay. In this
verse 8 NBLA 892 1 W-H Sod txt write κοψαντες for exomtov. There are
other clear indications of revision hereabouts. By whom is the question.
The apparent Alexandrine preference for the imperfect over the aorist,
a kind of historic present or imperfect,t is seen in some other places as
Mark ix. 38. εκωλυομεν (for εκωλυσαμεν)ὴ by NBD*LA Sod” fam 1 W-H
Sod, and it is noteworthy because repeated in Luke ix. 49 by
NBLE 157 Paris” a bel W-H Sod against the mass in both
places.
See also
Mk, viii. 25. ἐνεβλεπεν for eveBrever NBL 28 273 (WA fam 13 244 440
syr) W-H Sod.
That the historic present was revived can be seen in other Mss as C* alone
at Luke x. 30 xataBawe for xateBawev. Cf. Orig 2/3 Matt. xiv. 19 κέλευει.
B is absolutely alone at Mark i. 18 using ἠκολουθουν for ἠκολουθησαν
against all Greeks and versions.
Mark ii. 8. Aeyes (pro εὐπεν) NBLW 88 892 [non min al. magni momentt |
ef 9.09 W-H & Sod tat.
16. pr loco ort ἐσθιει (pro ote ἡσθιεν NSDL Sod™') B33 2°* Paris®’ ἃ
[sed D8 ησθιεν] ff r syr boh arm aeth W-H (avtov εσθιοντα
A plur af q goth). ἊΝ ὁ sec loco (pr. om) εσθιει et manducat.
iii. 8. ποίει (pro eroces) Blonly W-H tat (non Sod] against ND and
all the rest + W2 and cursives. Only sah and boh* support BL.
iv. 1. cuvayeras NBCLA® fam 13 28 604 892 Sod! et txt, (fam 1
see below), against συνηχθὴ DW unc? and ΣΦ all Latin and
6 and versions, and συνηχθησαν A 2°° al. pauc. and some
verss, 88 Matt, while the 1 fam is hopelessly divided, 1-209
reading συνερχεται, 181 συνερχονται and 118 συνηχθη.
vi. 1. epyerac (pro ηλθεν) NBCLA 892 W-H ὦ Sod txt, sed
confuse Sod in notul. (a? venit, al. aliter: abiit ut Ὁ καπηλθεν
sic) No minn except 892 join and this would seem a purely
arbitrary change. Note that W elides εκειθεν καὶ nAOev and
has only καὶ εξηλθὲν εἰς την πατριδα αὐτου. (Obs. epyerat i. 40,
v. 22, vi. 48, x. 1, xiv. 17, 37, 41, 66 by all ex lat? vENIT.)
The reading of the group NBCLA is absolutely opposed by
Origen : “καὶ o μαρκος Se φησιν καὶ nrOev εἰς THY...”
t Observe W alone at i. 26 avexpayev for φωνησαν of NBL 33 Paris” Orig W-H Sod
and xpagas of!D and κραξαν of the rest.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 103
[Δ place of great conflict. I lay no emphasis upon it because tenses are
all mixed up in this chapter :
Mark vi. 16. ἔλεγεν NBCLA# 33 892 f boh | ait Sd et bgrzilgrvg
εὐπτεν AD® 33 unc! et W ac ff, sah goth syr Sod**|
vii. 14. Neves B 59 only (against ἔλεγεν NDW rell omn et latt
e¢ evrev Sod” 2° a n syr copt)
Vill. 6. παραγγέλλει NBD*L 892 | υρῦ W-H Sod tat (praecipit, non
al. latt et d = praecepit et ὁ δ΄, jussit)
παραγγείλας Sod? aye
παῤρηγγεῖλε Rell et W et ewerake vid Orig («at a Μαρκος.
ἐπεταξε φησιν αὐτοῖς wavtas avakdwat’ evOade Se ou κελευει
ara παραγγελλει Tw οχλω ἀνακλιθηναι. Hine perperam (?)
παραγγέλλει RBDFL,
To these add perhaps of the man cured of the Legion of Devils:
v.18. wa pet αὐτου nv (pro ἢ B* A® only. The copts stopped
to consider this passage, for instead of esset of the Latins,
they have “follow” or “ remain with,” or “ go with” as aeth,
but all in indirect discourse.
νὴ. 386. ὠφέλει (pro wderncer) NBL and W:"" 892 a n q Aug
W-H Sod txt against all the rest (and against 33 Paris”
apernOncerat cf syr) and against sah boh Orig. Correct Tisch,
for sah boh are clear.
ix. 13. ηθέλον NBC“D® [contra d] LY 892W-H Sod tt, of boh
(k oportebat illum facere)
ηθελησαν Α unc rell? WE® minn et Paris latt[ Male Sod]
et ἃ voluerunt sah.
x. 10. exrnpwtavy NBLAY Sod min pauc et Paris” LauraA' 892
W-H & Sod tat
ernpwrouv © cst
ἐπηρώτησαν D rell omn et ΣΦ minn longe pl.latt copt syr goth.
[In ver. 18 NBCLAW reverse thist and write the aorist against
the imperfect, but in Mark these matters are very much involved. |
xiv. 35. exerrev (pro erecev) NBT" (eremertev) 892 [non Paris]
boh W-H Sod, contra sah et latt™. This is nothing but a crib
from boh [not sah, observe] and notice the manner of bo in
expressing it. (Cf. D Clem sol. avamimte pro avarece Luc xiv. 10)
49, expates ἘΒ sic, sed expaterte YS" (pro ἐκρατησατε rell). Until
Mr. Lake published the text of VW, B stood alone; not even 892
has expaterte.
x. 43. (pr loco) ἐστιν (pro εστῶῦ NBC*DLA et WY Sod” i! vg
copt W-H Sod txt (contra rell).
Observe in xii, 41 where δὲ 273 use Gewpe (only ¢ vidit) against εθεωρει
Gr reli and latt boh ‘ aspiciebat’ or ‘ videbat,’ Origen once uses θεωρεν and
once εθεωρει.
} Soden amusingly abandons W-H and the group here, for he loves the imperfect.
104 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
And, as bearing on Alexandrian custom, exhibited elsewhere, observe
the preference for the imperfect even over the present at
Mar!
“vi. 85. ἔλεγον NBLA Sod’ 88 892 Paris 0h W-H Sod (quite
a characteristic group) against Aeyovow of nearly everything
else and DW, while z¢" say dicentes as sah.
vil. 27. ἔλεγεν NBLA Sod? “45 33 892 Paris” bok W-H Sod (λέγει
D* 604 aq, Rell W et lati?! et ἃ sah evrev)
x. 28. ἔλεγεν &*C Sod“ (against λέγει of B plur)
And observe Clement when quoting x. 17 avoids both γονυπέτων
of D 28 fam 13 (geniculans lati) and γονυπετησας Gr" (genibus
prostratus a, et cum prodisset genibus 1) and says ἐγονυπέτει.
But the treatment of this matter generally in St. Mark by the
NB family is quite different from that exhibited in the other Gospels.
Frequently they render an aorist for an imperfect. They were so bent
on having their own way that I infer from this that if they were
translating from Latin they often supposed the Latin imperfect would
be better rendered by an aorist, but this subject is extremely com-
plicated in Mark as in everything else in the Gospel. Take vi. 56 for
instance. There are five imperfects in this verse ; introibat, © ponebant,
® deprecabantur, tangebant, and Ὁ salvi fiebant. The first and third
are agreed to by all, but NBLA W-H Sod and five lectionaries prefer
ετιθεσαν to ετιθουν, NBD* (against d latin tangebant) LA min® a ff, and
W-H prefer mpavro to ἡπτοντο, and while nearly all are agreed as to
eswtovto (διεσωζοντο N min aliq), 33 2°¢ Paris” want ἐεσωθησαν with a, and
A διεσωθησαν.
HaRMONISTIC.
Omissions.
ix. 88, ~ ος ove axorovber ἡμῖν (vel μεθ nuov Dadk) NBCLAY
Sod 10 115 346 9? 892 Paris” LauraA™ Sod 1 (non tat]
Est 44 f [non goth] boh syr pers aeth. The character of this
group makes it probable that they all consulted Luke and
found the clause absent and so excised it from Mark. Why
should nearly all the rest of the Greeks be so pleonaatic if not
genuine: os οὐκ axoAouBer ἡμῖν καὶ εκωλυομεν αὐτὸν OTL οὐκ
neorovber nuw? But DXW latt complicate matters with
Soden by leaving out the ore ove ἠκολουθει ἡμῖν at the end.
x. 6. -τ-ο Geos by only NBCLA Sod** [non Sod'*} ὁ ὃ sah boh. Not
even WY omits, and all others and syr, rell latt, aeth arm
goth have it. The passage here must be influenced from Matt.
xix. 4 where it is absent.
19. Here again BKAITW<Y invite us to throw out St. Mark’s
μὴ αποστερησης witnessed to by all Latins, by syr pesh sah
boh aeth, by δὲ and D and most Greeks, as well as by CL and
ὁ & which were with B at x. 13 jin (see above), which seems
to be simply because the words are absent in the parallel
Mark
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 105
accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke. In A there is a big
space showing the writer was aware of his strange recension.
Syr sin and arn support B ὧδ. and one lorn vg. But the rest
and the coptics are all against this excision nor do W-H Sod
accept it.
xiv. 68 fin. και (ευθεως) arextwp εφωνησεν. This is omitted by NBL and
xv. 10.
W [non 28] Ψ 892 Paris” Evst 17 ὁ syr sin sah boh [non aeth]
W-H [non Sod] but by these only, and no doubt because not
found in Matthew and Luke. The whole chapter has been a
tissue of harmonies (in which Origen and D have played a
part) and I do not refer to many of them. The presence
of W here, absent for the most part from the NB combinations
in this chapter, is probably due to coptic influence, for both
versions of the coptic omit here. But the Latins speak
with no uncertain sound including /, and with syr pesh and
the rest of the Greeks including D and CA (otherwise
generally with NBLY) oppose ὁ, which here shows its
frequent critical Egyptian tendency.
Observe B in the next verse omitting wadw alone with
M Paris” coptics and W. Practically all oppose, including
the friendly 892 and NCLA and Ψ, only varying the position.
ποι ἀρχίερεις B 1 [non fam] Paris®’ [non 892] Sod?* Hust
13 17 boh [non sah] syr sin [non pesh]
Cf. Matt xxvii. 18 where the words are absent, but we can
give B the credit of omitting from homoioteleuton in Mark as
the next words in xv. 11 are a repetition “‘ or δε apysepeis.” Τῇ
I concede this, I would like my critics to allow me to date boh
here quite as early as B, and not relegate poor boh to the
viz century.
. πθέλετε (ante ποίησ NBCA e¢ WW 1 [non fam] 13-69
[non 124-346] 33 291 892 Sod" sah boh (ut Matt xxvii. 22)
contra rell omn et Paris™ latt syr aeth arm. Soden accepts the
omission.
Again here the presence of W is accounted for from coptic
sympathy.
A dditions.
1. 84.
88,
Ἔχ εἰναι post ott ἡδεισαν avtov by BL WE: 892 and CGM αἱ.
(rou yv) aeth and boh (ex Lue iv. 41) but absolutely contra-
dicted by ND and the rest and even Paris” [against 28 2° 604
ete.] with syr goth pers and Vict diserte. Soden excludes.
+arrAayou NBC*L 33 Paris” sah boh arm aeth, but against
all others and W as well as 28 2° 604 and latt syr (ex Luc iv. 48
“καὶ eTEpats πολεσιν evayy. με deu”...). Soden excludes.
[This combination here of NBCL 33 Paris” against the rest
is only one recension, for at the end of the same verse they
106
iii. 14.
vi. 20.
49.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
have εξηλθον. together against all the rest again, who have
εξεληλυθα or ἐληλυθα.]
. Ἔκυριε ΒΟΙὟΥΣ Paris” al copt arm aeth ὁ 6 ff υσ' (ex Luc
v. 12 et Matt viii. 2) Not received by Soden.
+ovs Kat ἀποστόλους wvopacey NBC*A WA fam 18 28 238
Sod" [non Sod] & only with boh sah aeth (ex Lue vi. 18).
This is opposed by all the rest and Ὁ and Jatt arm and goth and
syr. Hort unfortunately takes it into his text without marginal
comment but R-V and Soden cast it out as Tischendorf had done
before them. W éis errant here writing καὶ ἐποίησεν 1B μάθητας
va WOW μετ αὐτου OVS καὶ αποστολοὺυς ὠνομᾶσεν, for W adds
μαθητας first and interposes wa wow pet αὐτου before making
the addition. D and the Latins control the situation.
(= Luke ix. 7) ope: for ποίει. See under “ Coptic.”
ott φαντασμα eotw (pro φαντασμα ewat) NBLA 33 892
Paris” W-H [non Sod] = Matt xiv. 26.
Observe in the same verse the order ews τῆς θαλασσης
περίπατουντα, οὗ NBLA Sod! 33 ot 892 Paris” syr sin
only, is the order of Matthew, accepted by W-H and by Soden.
Changes.
( viii, 21. νοεῖτε (pro cumete) B! (Ὁ) Vide sub ““ Coptic.”
I prefer not to regard this as harmonistic from Matt xvi. 11
because of the presence of ovy in some copies and of Ge in
sah, and because the sah word is almost voecre transliterated. ἢ
ix. 14, eAOovres...eidov (pro ἔλθων. . .εὐδεν) NBLUWAY 892 k sah arm
Cf Matt. and Luke. See remarks elsewhere as to opposition to
the rule of preferring the harder reading. Rejected by
Soden.
x. 13 fin. αυτος NBCLAW Paris” 892 ὁ hk boh sah 1/2 W-H
τοις προσφερουσιν practically all others and W2® minn omn
vid and the other versions and all other Latins.
This is simply accommodation by NB etc to the Matthaean
and Lucan accounts and about as vicious ἃ matter as we can
find. There are only two sah codices here extant and they
oppose each other. Westcott and Hort have the temerity to
place avrovs in their text without a word in the margin. And
—would it be believed ?—R-V ed. 1910 follows suit, with no
footnote. It had corrected the harmonising blunder above of
the same authorities, who wrote wa avtwy ayytas instead of
wa antat αὐτων against Origen’s specific information, and yet
here Souter’s edition perpetuates a fourth-century harmony,
in very bad taste then as it is now. Soden avoids this.
(Souter even restores ἐπετίμων for επετίμησαν of the same
blundering authorities and W-H.)
Mark
(xiv. 69.)
xv. 46.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 107
I suppose the Revisers thought ὁ k strengthen the NB
combination here for αὐτοῖς, but what of all the others? The
Latin side is the important one and all but ὁ & are with
D ὦ for τοις προσφερουσιν. How we can expect to proceed
on any such unscientific lines I fail to see. Souter’s text
corrects two trumpery mistakes in this verse of the same
Greek group, one of order and one of tense, and then leaves
the worst one in the text and the editor gives no authorities
below. We shall never advance at this rate. Did they not
realize when they accused NB of bad faith in taking the
Lucan order for wa αυὐτων αψηται that NB were looking at the
parallels, and hence the further blunder ?
I hope to show elsewhere that the Latin of ὃ d is the
important thing in Mark. And here we throw away the
testimony of DW and sixteen other uncials, practically all
cursives, all Latins but ὁ #, the syriacs including sin, goth,
arm, and aeth in favour of the usual coterie of blind guides.
They are only one, an entity, and that a critical recension.
Not the neutral text.
I merely make suggestions elsewhere, but I make free here
to demand of the next revisers that rors προσφερουσιν be restored
to Mark x. 13. Even Soden’s text holds it.
Finally here B alone adopts the ewev of sah boh aeth for
np~ato eye of absolutely everything else. All B’s friends
desert him and leave him self-accusant of coptic conspiracy.
This εὐπεν in copt is the same here as at Matt. xxvi. 71 (where
the Greek is λεγε). Horner has spoiled my picture in sah by
quoting B for np£aro λεγεῖν in error.
ενείλησεν TH σίνδονι Kat εθηκεν (pro κατεθηκεν)ὴ avTov εν μνηματι.
SBCPDLWS57” 206. 892 Sod** [non Paris] IW-H prefer
εθηκεν to κατεθηκεν. eOnxev is found to be the expression in
St. Matthew (xxvii. 60) and St. Luke (xxiii. 53) and this may
be classed as harmonistic on the part of NBC*DL, but it is
worse ; for why should they deny free speech to St. Mark
when the very catacombs at Rome re-echo κατεθηκενὶ For
this expression is found on some early sepulchral tablets in
the Christian catacombs, and doubtless St. Mark if writing
in Greek wrote xateOnxev and not εθηκεν. [A = καθῆκεν;
Soden and Tisch retain κατεθηκεν.}
Improvement.
1. 7. epyetat ὁ ἰσχυροτερος pov οπίσω (-- μοῦ seg) only B and
Orig 1/2 against all others and against Origen close by
distinctly μου οπισω pov. Hort places this second pov in
square brackets, but it is quite against the weight of evidence.
108
Mark
1, 27,
ii. 18.
ili. 6.
33.
iv. 28,
38.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
The only others to vary are 6 J q which elide the first μου, and
Ai 273 ὃ ff, ¢ which leave the first μου and elide oricw μου.
wote συνζητειν avTous (pro wate συνξ. προς eavtous rell) NB only
W-H (cf. ὃ ὁ} ᾳ —avtovs) against Paris” and the rest.
Sod has no new witness. W has καὶ συνεζητουν προς cavtous,
of syr.
A question of “pairs” as in Matthew, or rather of triplets.
Scare ot wad. lwavvov καὶ οἱ pad. των pap. νηστευουσιν ot Se σοι
(--. μαθηται) ov νηστ. B elides the third μαθηται (fourth in the
verse) with only two cursives (127 and 2”°) and most mss of
the bohatric; so [W-H]. Tisch does not record this for boh
and Horner forgets to put it in his sah apparatus.
. οδοποίειν (pro odov trovetv) BGH 1 872 892 Sod™* (Om W,
habens τίλλειν pro τίλλοντες).
συμβούλιον εδιδουν (pro συμβ. erowvv vel εποιησα) BL
Jam 13 28 2°° 604 boh™* Sod** δὲ txt, against Paris” and d
ἐποίουν with the mass, against ἐποίουντο W Sod’, against
ἐποίησαν NCA Sod? boh?! sah, and against D* and ὦ ποιουντες.
—pov jin BD*® arm? W-H only [contra d rell omn et verss|
This is another question of “pairs” where we have so often
found B guilty before. It is quite natural. The phrase is τὶς
ἐστιν ἡ μητὴρ μου Kat or ἀδελῴοι μου, witnessed to by all other
Greeks (but W, see below), all Latins and syr copt aeth.
Ambrose 1/2 and Aug agree (libere) with BD*, and W goes
further and elides pov after μητηρ retaining it after aderdos,
thus giving the lie direct to BD®, although not as usual
wholly supporting the Latins. Westcott and Hort adopt
the omission of BD* just because B and D® happen to agree.
It is wholly unscientific, because small d is supported by all
others. Soden avoids this.
εἰτεν (pro eta) bis BULA W-H. Ionic form. δὲ has εὐτεν
sec. (but omits evra στάχυν altogether). N° inserts evra σταχυν
but allows εὐτεν 7d. following to stand.
For “καὶ ἣν avtos ems τὴ πρυμνὴ eme τὸ προσκεφαλαίον
xabevdov”” NABCDLAW fam 1 fam 18 17 28 58 61 77 116
273 604 892 LauraA!* Sod* Hust 48 222 semel it vg ete.
would substitute ev for the first exe: “in puppi.” But can
we conceive that a revision would put in this ers? Rather
is it the hand of revision which removes this ἐπὶ so as to
have but one επὸ in the sentence, and substitutes ev for the
first. This seems logical. I assume here a Greek original. It
we assume a Latin original, then the matter simply is a question
of two recensions or translations. Soden prints ἐν as W-H.
The sah here is a little picturesquely amplified, while boh
expresses ἐπὶ (or ev) τῇ mpuuvy by one word &idapos
“behind,” “ retro.”
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 109
Mark
See Wetstein ad loc. quoting Hom. Od. “...¢m txproduv
yNadupns (να νήγρετον evdot πρυμνης.᾽" Cf Liddell and Scott
under ἐκρία and Homer Od. iii. 353.
v. 27. axovoaca ta περί Tov wu «= N*BC*A EHvst 33 W-H [non Sod].
Hither due toretranslation, improvement, or from AKOYCACANEPI.
36. mapakoucas (proaxouvcas) N* o> BULA et W 892* ? 6 (contra
rell omn et latt rell omn copt syr). This must be a “ nicety,”
as rendered by 6 ‘‘ Ths autem neglecxit sermonem,” referring to
the previous verse where the messengers report that the daughter
is dead and add ‘“‘ Why dost thou trouble the Teacher?”
Sod follows Hort and Tisch, but adds 2°¢ [contra Cronin].
All Latins oppose with D, but e joining W and NBLA
shows the hand of revision.
As Dr. Scrivener comments on this in his ‘ Plain Introduction’ I will
add here the other two examples in 50. Mark which he discusses :
x. 16. xatevdoyee NBCA Sod” 892, κατηυλογει LNY Paris” ys Per
(pro evroye (nuaoyes TEM 28 al.) ADEHK*MSUVXTI et W
minn, εὐλόγησεν EGK? e8* ust 28° Sod 4) I give the evidence
in full. Scrivener did not know of NW2®W or Paris®’.
(Latt = benedicebat). Soden prints κατευλογει.
xli. 17. εξεθαυμαζον NBY ὃ W-H Sod, εθαυμαζον D*LA Sod 81. 2 gre
Laura‘ 198. 892 latt boh (εθαυμαξοντο D*), εθαυμασαν ACNXITI
al. unc? et W2® al. pl. k sah. I add here the evidence of
W=® and ¥ unknown to Dr. Scrivener. 604 and Paris” read
εθανυμασαν.
Now hear Dr. Scrivener:
““qrapaxoveas, ‘overhearing,’ instead of axovoas, may be deemed
probable on the evidence of N*BLA and the Latin 6, which must have had
the reading, though it mistranslated negleit.” (A note to this observes
that Lucian certainly gives the word this meaning.) ‘ We gladly credit
the same group (NBCLA 4781 Evst 150 259) with another rare compound
κατεύλογει in x. 16 whose intensive force is very excellent. In xii. 17
a similar compound εξεθαυμαΐζον is too feebly vouched for by NB alone.”
Thus Dr. Scrivener. I cannot agree with him. This is very old-
fashioned criticism and neglects the force of the grouping. As a matter
of fact the last illustration is rather better attested than the others in
a way, because an independent enters in, in the person of the Latin ms b,
which by adding vehementer to mirabantur, alone among Latins, provides
the force of e€eOavyatov. The Latins also give us the imperfect. If I
am correct as to 6 being the most important base key of the whole Old
Latin in St. Mark, this is a most serious place, as showing (if ὃ has not
been revised here on an Old Greek like NB) that ΒΨ got εξεθαυμαξον when
translating a Latin like b, or using a Greek base the counterpart of b.t
+ But 473 (2°) is wrong.
t cf, use admirabantur, A admirati sunt, but the others mirabantur.
110 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Now as to the other two places. Dr. Scrivener favours wapaxovoas
supported by ἀξ κοῦ ον BLA and ἊΝ 6, and κατευλογει supported by NBCA
(LNY Paris” y** P**). I believe, on the contrary, that this is either pure
revision (“improvement ”) or is to be accounted for by translating into
Greek, at any rate in the second place “ benedicebat.”” The reason is this.
Why should “ Antioch ” or any other revision have sought to displace
παρακουσας and κατεύλογει if they were such good expressions that they
commend themselves to the critic as having intensive force? Is it
reasonable, is it probable, is it possible that all the other recensions and
documents cast out these good intensive expressions? Where are the
1 family, the 18 family, and 28 and 33 and 157, 2?¢ and 604 and others
usually so friendly? To support the theory of παρακουσας and κατευλογει
being original and basic, we must do this: we must accuse 33 of having
come to this placef and having deliberately rejected these good
readings. We must similarly accuse fam 1 fam 13 in their entirety
of the same course. We must accuse 28 (sister of W) of having
seen παρακουσας and xaTevroyes and of having rejected them. Similarly
we must accuse 2°* and 604 of the same proceeding. I wish to state
this matter thus, once for all. It has not been put to us thus before,
but daily and hourly for years I have been confronted with this
proposition, and it is this which causes me to write this whole essay
on NB.
Cursive Mss, most friendly otherwise, desert the revisers of Egypt
just when they should be expected to support them in “" good” “ plausible”
or “improving” readings. And it is this which causes me to believe that
the boot is entirely on the other foot and that what we have been taught
were revisions at Antioch or elsewhere are nothing of the sort, but that
it is the beloved group NBCL, +A in St. Mark and ¥, which come
from the same parent-revisor of the “true” text. They sought to
improve.
It was old-fashioned and unscientific of Dr. Scrivener to welcome 6
as strengthening the cause of the small group (which is simply an
integer recopied) for mapaxoveas, although W# now upholds, because,
as I have shown, W 9 are simply one, and because 6 is away from all
other Latin support here. Similarly xarevdoyes is not strengthened by
Ψ Paris” particularly. It merely indicates that these uss found this
in their exemplars (of the same stem exactly as NB) and if they found
this here why should they not also be truthfully copying when they do not
reproduce other doubtful things which we find in NB? That is the
question. And that is why the mss junior to XB in years, but of the
same parentage, should be useful to us in checking the traditional text,
and not by casting away their check when it displeases us, lead to the
perpetuation of erroneous readings or renderings in NB.
+ 88 is wanting at x. 16, but extant at xii. 17.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 111
As to Paris*®’.
Thus Paris” does not read παρακουσας in v. 86. I subjoin a com-
parison of some readings of Paris*’ in this same chapter (verses 1/13) to
show exactly how Paris” stands compared to δὲ and B.
Mark
v. i. γεργεσηνων Paris? LUA etc (γερασηνων NBD)
2. εξέλθοντος αὐτου ‘ NBCLA 892
UIENVTNG EV NBCDGLA
3. μνημασιν τὸ NB plur (μνημειοις ὯΗ al.)
ἀλυσεσιν τ N plur (arvcee BCL W)
OVKETL OVOdELS ‘3 NBCDLA 892
4, δια To αυτον πολλ. ὁ, B plur (δὲ avtov πολλ. ἐξ, δια To
πολλ. W, οτι πολλ. αυτον D)
6. καὶ Wov nr, NBCLA 892
προσεκ. AUTO 4 ND plur (ap. αὐτὸν BACLA)
8. ἔλεγεν yap 5 B plur (καὶ ἔλεγεν &)
9. ovoua μοι Ἢ S olur (+eoTw B)
10. «ποστείλη autous “5 AM al. (avrous απ. DFEFGHSU,
avta aroot. BCA, avurov αἀποστ. NL,
aroat. avtov KII, — autovs 892)
13. εἰσηλθον PF N plur (εἰσηλθεν BT” Sod)
noav Se ws δισχ ὖ,, A unc? (om noav δὲ NBCDLA 892)
and so it runs to
86. ἀκουσας Paris” plur et 892 ex emend (παρακουσας
NBLWA e)
Improvement (continued).
Mk. vi. 24. tov βαπτιζοντος NBLA® Sod? 2° W-H Sod against all
the rest (and 28, Scholz misled Tisch as to 28) τον βαπτιστου
and W as copé and Jatt.
It is difficult in Mark to know where to class this. It
may be due to retranslation. If ‘ foundation” on the part
of NBLA* then how did all the rest get του βαπτιστουϑ But
if the Latin baptistae was original, then we can see NBLA*
translating independently of DW and the rest.
25 fin. Of course the Latin remains constant here with baptistae.
L repeats tov βαπτίξοντος, but NBA 2Ρὲ here go with the rest
for tov βαπτιστου while it is 604 and 892 which go alone to
join L here.
51 fin. εξισταντο (pro ἐξίσταντο καὶ εθαυμαζον NBLAA* (fam 1)
28 [non 604 non Paris*"] 892 copt ὁ ff, i186 vg syr sin W-H Sod.
This is seeking to remove a conflation and is a very interest-
ing example. Various proof offers as to this, In the first
place both D and W with the rest hold the double expression.
112
Mark
Vili.
15.
9.
25.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
d is strengthened by ὁ 4 fr syr?™" arm aeth (a adds cum
admiratione). Further the 1 family substitute εξεπλησσοντο
for εξισταντο while cancelling καὶ εθαυμαζον, showing what they
were driving at, and, may I ask, why should all other Greeks
conflate including Paris’? This ms has been consistently
following the fortunes of NB in this chapter (against D 2”
rell) but now deliberately says that this is not a conflation, but
is original. Nor is it imported in any way from St. Matthew.
The “conflation” was undone by NBLA in ny opinion as an
“improvement,” and upon reference to John vi. 19 where καὶ
εφοβηθησαν is the expression. Finally note that 2°, like the
1 family, was exercised here, and while omitting λίαν earlier in
the verse, finishes thus: ἐξίσταντο καὶ εθαυμαξον dav ev εαντοις.
. ραντισωνται NB 40 53 71 86 179 237 240 244 259 sah Huthym
W-H instead of βαπτισωνται D rell and W with the important
-minuscules and datt. In Apoc χῖχ. 18 δὲ" and N° with P favour
‘‘ sprinkling ” as against βεβαάμμενον of most, but there Hipp
and the Latins are with them. Here in Mark the character
of the cursives suggests distinctly that the change was made by
NB, and not by the others. Not only do DW reli oppose, but
fam 1 18 28 157 2°* 604 892 and even Paris” have βαπτισωνται.
This is the more important as to the latter because imme-
diately following Sod'#? Paris” alone with B write azrep
ἔλαβον for a παρέλαβον showing the B base in this detail and
contradicting ραντισωντα. Cf. Merx, p. 70, ad loc. ‘deren
schlimmste und sachlich ganz verkehrte in NB.’
—exewa NBLA Sod 4 2 Paris” Evst 48 49 boh (against
sah and the rest of Greeks and all Latins). This seems a
distinct effort to remove a superfluous word, which no doubt
from the testimony of DW etc. is basic. Cf. Paris*’ which goes
further and elides ἐστιν, writing “ta κοινουντα Tov avOpwrov ”’
(almost the antithesis of B’s unique τὸ κοίνουν αὐτὸν above,
which Paris” does not adopt). Soden omits exewa.
—ov dayovres NBLA Sod e546 33 892 Paris®” Evst* 18
19 49 150 sah™*? boh'*. The same group approximately
as above, although a whole chapter further on. There is no
particular reason for adding oc φώγοντες (which all the rest
and DW have) but there is a possible ‘‘nicety” involved in
removing the words as unnecessary. Sod’* omits.
εθηκεν tas χειρας emt, for ereOnKev τὰς χειρᾶς ἐπὶ only by
BL 892 Sod**** against all else Gf we except syr copt) and all
Latins imposuit (or inponens as a with D®™ 2” 604 eres).
This seems to be from a desire to avoid the double em. If
εθηκεν ... emt were original, why should a revision strive for
pleonasm by changing εθηκεν to ἐπέθηκεν ἡ Soden refuses εθηκεν.
Mark
ix, 29.
41.
xi. 17.
ibid,
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 118
- καὶ νηστεια SB k Clem W-H [non Sod] against everything
else as well as the new ΝΥ ΣΦ and even ¥ and Paris” and 892.
Cf. Merx, pp. 103/4.
[Ὁ has “in orationibus”’ not ‘‘in oratione” for ev προσευχή,
but so have ὁ g and r ὦ (contra D*) ‘in orationibus et
jejuniis,” and i vg? “ in orationibus et jejunio.”}
The syriacs (with bof? arm aeth) give “ fasting’’ the place
of honour, reading ev νηστεία καὶ προσευχή.
εν ονοματι ov oT χρίστου εστε. No less than ABC*KLNII*
and S®W¥3 1 [ron fam] 892 Paris” Laura‘! and eight other
cursives + five of Sod remove this μου. Tischendorf says “‘vdtr
propter pleonasmum omissum esse; st quis intulisset pov,
eiecisset opinor ote χῦ ἐστε." ἘΠ found that not only held μου,
but substituted ἐμὸν for χρίστου afterwards, reading “ ev ονοματί
μου οτι ἐμὸν eatat,”’ hence he was trying to account for the
absence of μου in B. His explanation is quite possible, for all
Latins have meo and quia ypu estis (only ff, substitutes Dni
for ypc and & suppresses estis) and if we regard the Latin as a
whole to be basic we must come to the same conclusion. In
other words it is a smoothing away of a supposed difficulty.
καὶ εδιδασκεν καὶ ἔλεγν NBCLAY 6 fam 18 k ὃ boh (aeth)
(syr) Orig W-H & Sod tat.
This I believe to be another’ clear case of improvement by
“pairs.” + For sixteen verses we have had much disagreement,
but the Latins have been more or less divided. Here they rise
in a body and with sah (against boh) they contradict the group
NBCLAY Orig W-H Sod, and have with all other Greeks, in-
cluding W2® 2”° 604 Paris” and LauraA!, καὶ ἐδίδασκεν Aeywu..
In xi. 1-16 Orig and NB have been much divided but here
they conspire together.
This is followed closely by πεποιήκατε by BLAW Orig W-H Sod
only. The LXX quotation, as pointed out in the notes on
Matthew, does not lend itself to any particular form of the
verb. But nearly all Greeks use ἐποιήσατε here, including the
Latinisers 2°* and 604 and the friends of NB, viz Sod*** 892
Paris” and Laura‘! , and if πεποιήκατε had been basic why
should all change, for the aorist is hardly an improvement here ?
. Within seven verses we here get another illustration of
improvement by “ pairs.”
οσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε ΝΝΒΟΌΣΔΨ 892 Paris”
Laura4™ [non al. Sod] acd ff, k syr Cypr W-H & Sod txt.
oca Tpocevyopevot αἰτεισθε A unc rell? et ἊΝ ΣΦ minn
rell omn vid ὃ et latt reil.
+ Asa matter of fact A repeats the performance in verse 18, writing καὶ nxovov...
καὶ e(ntovuy for καὶ ἠκουσαν... «καὶ εζητουν.
Ι
114
Mark
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
The three cursives seem to be the only supporters of the five
uncials with XB. Dd of,course lend support, but in view of
the other arguments against such “pairs” Dd may have
followed the “improvement”? here, which W® and ὁ, two
equally good witnesses, take pains to contradict. Besides, if |
προσευχεσθε και αἰτεισθε were fundamental, why should a
revision change to προσευχόμενοι αἰτεισθεῦ Whenever a
copula has to be added to make such a change it is suspicious.
(Sah boh here do not help to recover the original reading).
If I submitted this without the one at xi. 17, the correctness
of the inference might well be impugned. Kindly consider the
two matters together and then the addition of D d may not be
considered so weighty in the second place. (Sod abstains.)
Besides, consider Origen? cay στηκητε mpocevyomevos
πίστευετε oTt λαμβάνετε καὶ ληψεσθε, thus merging 24/25 but
implying a probable antagonism to XB.
ΧΙ. 24 init. εφη αὐτοῖς o inoovs NBCLAW 88 892 Paris” Sod'*** et
37.
xu. 15.
Sod sah boh syr pesh [contra syr sin]
This is the “shorter” text. Such introductions have
occurred several times already in this Gospel (and see below
xii. 29). I have hesitated to brand them as ‘‘ improvements ”
in deference to the shorter text. But here Origen®** (with
the rest of the Greeks and all the Latins) comes to say that
αποκρίθεις ὁ τησους εἶπεν (αυτοις) is the Marcan text. There-
fore the previous passages involving this “ cutting” (generally
with copt) must be viewed with suspicion. The group itself
is plainly self-accusant of a special line of work, and as it
would appear editorial, some time back in the third century.
Consider xii. 27 fin again the “shorter” text “πολυ πλανασθε"
NBCLWAYW 892* Sod'** “43 ἢ sah boh against all others (even
33 and Paris®’ oppose) and we see the same group at work.
For the others including syr pesh have the longer expression.
Out of six varying orders BLT“ 2°¢ 892 Sod 1448. et txt elect to
use αὐτου eotw vos. Cf remarks on “Genitive before the
noun ”’ in Luke.’ Here in Mark the possessive precedes the noun
according to coptic usage but the verb comes last: αὐτοῦ uios
ἐστιν by sah boh and 179 705 goth, so that (taking into con-
sideration vios αὐτου ἐστιν of δὲ rell pl. and ὃ, and eorw νιος
avtov of D ἃ it", and ἐστιν avtov vios of Ak 8) the order of BLT*
seems to be a grammatical preference combined with coptic.
πεῖς τὴν οἰκίαν §=NBLY 245 Sod****5 ¢ k sah boh [non aeth]
syr pesh [non sin] W-H [non Sod]
This I think is a clear case of improvement. It is opposed
by D and all the rest, including not only W 28 and the
minuscules (2"* only has the shortened clause “" καὶ o em τοῦ
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 115
Swpatos μὴ KataBatwo εἰς τὴν οἰκιαν αὐτου} but by 892
Paris®’ and Laura! sy sin and all the other non- Egyptian
Latins, arm and aeth. The reason is to avoid Mark’s
characteristic pleonastic touch, for he undoubtedly wrote:
o δὲ (or καὶ ο D it!) emt Tou δωματος μη καταβατω εἰς THY οἰκιαν
μηδε εἰσέλθατω ἀραὶ TL εκ της οἰκίας αὐτου. The compiler of
the NBL‘ recension seems to have forgotten Mark’s method.
See below again at xiv. 19. This will be a good place to
exhibit it.
Mark’s Diction.
I take the liberty of extracting from Sir John Hawkins’ list some of
the longer expressions in St. Mark’s synoptic diction.t{ They are very
interesting as showing on the one hand semitic pleonasm (and no doubt
more true to life than the shortened forms in St. Matthew “! St. Luke)
and on the other a kind of Roman rhetoric which Mark | may have
imbibed amid Roman surroundings.
Mark
i. 32. οψίας Se γενομενῆς oe edu (εδυσεν) 0 ἡλίος
42. ἀπηλθεν am avtou ἡ λεπρα και εκαθερισθη
45. κηρυσσειν πολλα καὶ διαφημίζειν Tov λογον
i. 20. τοτε νηστευσούσιν εν εκεινῆ TH NEPA
25. χρείαν ἐσχεν καὶ ἐπεινᾶσεν
iii. 96. ov δυναται σταθηναι adra τέλος EXEL
iv. 5. ἐπὶ το wetpwdes (vel ert τα πετρωδὴη) Kat οὐκ εἰχεν γην πολλην
8. καρπον ἀναβαίνοντα καὶ αυξανοντα (vel ανξανομενον)
21. uo τὸν μοδιον τεθη ἡ νυπο THY κλινὴν
89. εκοπᾶσεν 0 ἀνεμοὸς καὶ ἔγενετοὸ γαλήνη μεγαλη
v. 19. εἰς Tov οἰκον σοὺ προς Tous σοὺς
ibid. οσα ο κυριος σοι πεποίηκεν και ἡλεησεν σὲ
28. wa σωθη καὶ Enon
26. και μηδεν ὠφέληθεισα αλλα μαλλον εἰς τὸ χείρον ἔλθουσα
33. φοβηθεισα καὶ τρεμουσα
89. τι θορυβεισθε και (τ) κλαίετε
vi. 4. καὶ εν τοῖς συγγενευσιν αὐτου καὶ εν TH οἰκια αὐτοῦ
vil. 21. ἐσωθεν. «εκ της καρδιας
vii. 17. ουπω νοεῖτε οὐδε συνίετε
ix. 2. κατιδιαν povovs
12. wa πολλα παθη και εξουθενωθη
35. εσται παντων ἐσχατος καὶ πάντων διάκονος
x, 22. στυγνασας. «λυπουμενος
80. νυν εν τω Kalpw τοντω
+ Pp. 189/141. I have modified some passages slightly to embrace some ms
evidence, and excluded others where the mss vary.
12
116 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Mark
xu. 44. παντα oca evyev. «ολον τον βιον
Rill. 28. ἀπαλος γενηταῦ καὶ εκφνη τα φυλλα
29. eyyus ἐστιν emt θυραις * (and Matthew, not Luke)
xiv. 1. to πασχα καὶ Ta αζυμα (Compare Luke)
6. adete αὑτην " τὶ αὐτὴ KoTrous παρέχετε
15. ἐστρωμενον eroysov (Some Latins and Orig expand further.)
80. σημερον TavTn τὴ νυκτι
61. ἐσιωπα καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο οὐδὲν (vel καὶ οὐδὲν amrexp.)t
XV. 21. παραγοντα . . epyopevov am’ aypou
32. wa dopey καὶ πιστευσωμεν (αυτω)
42. eres nv παρασκευὴ o ἐστιν προσαββατον (vel προς σαββ. vel πριν
σάββ.)
Xvi. 2. (λίαν) pot. .(eTt) ἀνατείλαντος Tov ἡλίου
[Add xiii. 15, xiv. 19.]
Improvement (continued).
Mark
xiii. 35. ἢ owe ἢ μεσ. (pro oe n μεσ) NBCLA® £3 892 Sod’ 309 fam ga
et Sod k 3 sah boh aeth
The first 4 is an addition by these authorities to make the double
“pair” t against all else, and W2® Origen*** and Origi™' 38”
In this we cannot tell whether: the sahidic got it from these six
Greeks or the Greeks from the sahidic, as in sah the expression is
literally the same: H...H3; in boh it is Εἰ. «Εἰ.
To xiii. 15 now add’xiv. 19 jin. where καὶ addos pnts eyo is omitted
by NBCLPA et W [non 28] ¥ min αἰΐᾳ 9.18 vg sah boh syr aeth. This
looks like a strong combination, but for the clause are ranged DAW*XTTI
unc® et ΣΦ, all the important minn including fam 1 fam 18 (both in their
entirety) 28 [Aiat 33] 157 2° 604 892 Laura4! etc (and Paris”, the
latter apparently having καὶ ο adAos without pnts eyw sec) ὃ a (mut δ) ἃ
SF (mut goth) 94 ὃ ἃ q (mut r) Orig, and it is decidedly in Mark’s manner.
Absent in Matthew it may well have been thought redundant here and
early removed. As Sir John Hawkins’ book is based on Westcott and
Hort’s text he naturally does not have on his list this place or xiii. 15.
The full context here at xiv. 19 is: “(καὶ vel ou Se) ἡρξαντο λυπεῖσθαι Kat
λεγειν αὐτῶ εἰς κατα (vel καθ) εἰς μητι εγω καὶ addos μητι eyo.” It is
this καὶ addos μητί eyo which the itala supports with D unc minn longe
pland Origen against the Egyptian coterie of uncials plus a few scattering
+ απεκριθὴ of D is ἃ form no doubt later than the second century. See Moulton’s
review of Thackeray’s Grammar of Old Testament Greek in 4.1.3. January 1910,
pp. 299/800.
Φ “ἡ ope n peo., ἡ adexrp. ἡ moar” instead of “ oe ἡ μεσ. ἡ adexrp. ἡ πρωι.᾽
§ Cf c in peculiar manner inverting: “ nunquid ego aut alius hoc singuli coeperunt
dicere.”
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 117
cursives (see below) and sah boh syr aeth [not arm apparently]. To the
previous evidence for omission we have now to add W, but given its
Egyptian environment this witness has not here a very grave importance,
and 28, its sister, contradicts it. It seems almost incredible that this
very pleonastic clause should have been added, but very natural that it
should have been subtracted as quite redundant. We are however doing
violence to Mark’s own distinct method (as exhibited above) if we elide
the words, and Origen is a witness here for the words *** distinctly
Marcan (0 δὲ μαρκος ott ἡρξαντο λυπεισθαι Kar Aeyew auTw εἰς καθ eva....)
but Origen is here put out of court by the critics because he fails to
uphold the doctrine of codices otherwise sympathetic. Thus we are up
against a wall of prejudice which has forced the critics to follow certain
rules involving the impeccability of certain witnesses. The addition here
is absolutely Maik-like and I believe in D and the itala with Origen
against the other versions and NBW etc. This is practically a key place
as to how much force such a strong grouping for omission should
exercise. And we cannot consider it apart from Mark’s habitual
manner. Soden does not omit, although retention stultifies his other
readings with the same group. .
Tisch claims min” for omission, but I doubt if there be as many.
Among them are 17 106 131? 218 55 Hust 7 9 10 12 14 17 36. Thus
none of Matthaei’s codices and only one of Scrivener’s. Soden adds five.
Finally consider the Latin expressions for εἰς καθ᾽ εἰς (εἰς κατα εἰς
NBLA [non W] Ψ 892; Beza εἰς κάτα [= και εἰτα] εἰς; εἰς εκαστος C;
εἰς παρ εἰς 244; εἰς xa? eva Orig) for there is quite a difference between
singillatim of vg gol, and singult of the principal vett. The singuli
allows of numguid ego with the addition οὐ alius nunquid ego, while
singillatim assumes the stop after numquid ego without further addition
as if when Jerome was translating his Greek he adopted this on purpose,
not proposing to amplify the clause.
k indeed transfers singwlis to the end after the double clause,
thus: “ Ill autem coeperunt contristari et dicunt illi numquid ego alius
numquit ego singulis.” Observe ὁ, cited above.
Mark
xiv. 29. Indeed it is a question whether Mark’s pleonastic manner
has not been pruned at this place also. For εἰ καὶ waves
σκανδαλισθησονται αλλ οὐκ eyw there is added by Ὁ d ff,
4 7? vg ov σκανδαλισθησομαι. And to this witness now add
(teste Buchanan) b: nunquam scandalizabor, exactly as (teste
Horner) the sah ms™,
36 jin. Or at this place, where to: αλλ ov τὶ eyw θελω (or αλλ
οὐχ ὁ eyo θέλω D) adda τι ov (or adr o ov D) there is found
the addition of eres in D Sod 2° t c*abcdf fr (hiat ὃ
ἡ Tisch. omits 2°°,
118
Mark
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
g2 q (7 3) vg'® sah boh arm aeth. Τὸ is rather curious that the
coptics add, but not NB rvell gr nor W. Buchanan now adds
ὃ to all these other Latins.
xv. 46 init. Or indeed here, where all Latins have ὁ δὲ wand
(following tw ἑωσηφ ver 45 fin) with ὍΣ [hiant N®] Sod*°
are and a very few cursives against all Greek uncials and W.
It is quite possible that the first Latin draft of Mark contained
this, and that it was removed in the first Greek as rather
unnecessary and καὶ substituted. At any rate it is very
peculiar to find such a clash of arms as occurs here when
all Greeks and W are for καὶ against all Latins and D> Sod*°
88 106 435 2° Sod'?? ὃ 898. for o de wwond (n syr? MTB καὶ
toon) especially as in the previous verse W is with D 1 124
QP¢ Sod!" substituting mapa tov xevtupuwvos for amo tov
xevtuptovos, and yet here opposes. And in verse 46 again goes
with D ὦ (ΩΡ) alone for εἰς την. σινδονα (pro τη awéort).
Consider also xi. 11 oyuas ovons (-- τῆς wpas) by Bi alone. Cf.
John xx. 19 ovens ουν ὀψιὰς and Thueyd. (i. 50) ηδη de nv oe.
And Mark xiv. 8 of the contents of the alabaster box :
xiv. 38.
κατέχεεν αὐτου κατα τῆς Kepadns. This κατὰ is removed by
NBCWA δ 1 [non 118-209] 28 435 892 Sod” et Sod* (kK: et
perfudit cum a capite). ems is substituted by D Evst 20 sah
boh (syr) tt, but Arrian (quoted by Wetstein) supports the N.T.
use: “Bare edadiov παίδαριον εἰς το βαλανειον, εβαλον av
γαριον, Kat αἀπέλθων κἀτὰ τῆς κεφαλὴης αὐτου KaTEXEOD.”
“προαευχεσθς wa μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πείιρασμον." N*B 18-846-
556 Sod’? and ῳ are for making it wp. wa μὴ ελθητε εἰς
tetpacpov to remove the double es. Sod follows NB and W-H
here.
The other 21 Greek uncials, including CDLA and ¥" and
W as well as the great cursives and 892 Paris” Laura4™, are
all against NB, while 69-124 give the lie to 13 -346-556 of this
family. When the NBCLAW family (for it is a family of
uncials in Mark just as much as fam 13 of cursives) is divided,
and only two of its members, NB, go apart, and CLAY, four
of its members, join the great. majority, why should we favour
NB? Consider for a moment, if ἐλθητε were original, why
change to εἰσέλθητε and invite the pleonasm? The answer
would be that all these 21 Greek uncials have been
accommodated to Matthew and Luke, where we read
εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμονὶ I think the charge here is rather
ridiculous, for if so it is a conspiracy of W (the contemporary
of NB) as well as of 20 other uncials and 1,000 cursives.
Rather is it that the Greek recension of Mark, as I am
trying to point out, is a thing apart and must be reckoned
Marx
xv. 86.
XVI.
39.
40.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 119
with as such, and that here NB were merely ‘ improving ”
εἰσέλθητε εἰς and do not hold the neutral base against all else.
I have excluded, as a rule, passages which were liable to
reaction from synoptic parallels, and only adduce this with
some hesitation. See below for confirmation at xvi. 5.
τις (pro ets) NBULAWV 892 Paris” 5 (arm) against all else,
all Latins (but δ), sah bok aeth, and syr (although it will
bear both interpretations). The above little group is simply
an entity deriving from one revising parent. I do not cite
it as a special case of improvement, for eic may have
been simply misread as TiC, but in order to emphasise the
basic entity of this group as a whole. Not a “neutral’’
entity however, as Hort the Revisers and Soden [against all
other Mss] indicate by placing τὸς in their texts, because all
the Latins oppose, except ὃ over A® of the group.
More grave is the omission of κραξας here by NBLYV 892
and copt. No others. W, which has a lacuna xv. 12-38,
begins again just before this, and has xpafas with all the rest.
See my ‘Genesis of the Versions,’ vol. 1. p. 403 seg for the
explanation. A avoided this in the eighth century. Hort
revived the error in the nineteenth, and R-V followed suit,
and Souter’s edition of 1910 maintains it and Soden also omits.
As to & that Ms merely substitutes exclamavit for εξεπνευσεν.
—nv NBL [non AV] p** 892 vg 1/2 W-H c Sod txt.
+nv all the rest and WSW Paris’, DA and all Old Latin
extant and vgg''* boh (sah eat). As to the Latin Wordsworth
remarks “ emendatio Hieronymiana ut videtur ex graeco”’ for
Amiatinus and ten vulgates omit against the Old Latin.
(The syriacs and aeth omit ev ars nv).
. ἔλθουσαιν (pro εἰσέλθουσα) Only B 127 against all the other
Greeks friendly to B. This is another case of real “‘ improve-
ment” on account of the es following: “καὶ εἰσελθουσαὶ εἰς
τὸ μνημειον." See B in the other Gospels. Hort places
ἔλθουσαι in his margin, obviously liking B’s method.
Change without Improvement.
Among many we fasten at once upon xvi. 4. Here we are on firm
ground before the famous dispute as to what follows xvi. 8.
XV.
4,
ανακεκυλίσται (}7Ὸ0 «ποκεκυλίιστα) NBL W-HR.V. Sod. This
is of the stane, and appears to represent a mistaken view of the
way in which the stone was placed in Jewish burial places.
Neither A nor VW join NBL here, nor any minuscules, not
even 892 or Paris®’, while the itala Mss with D (αποκεκυλισμενον)
all have revolutum except n = amotum. The question is of
120
Mark
iv. 8.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
rolling away, rolling away from, not lifting or rolling up.
To think NBL (as Hort and R.V., Sod text) represent a
“neutral” text because az oxex. is the expression in Matthew
and Luke is to do violence to the whole synoptic problem.
The mass of authorities did not accommodate to Matthew
and Luke here (againsi NBL) for Ψ witnesses against its
friends with the rest, but it only proves once more that the
textual situation in St. Mark is quite different from that in
the other Gospels as regards NBL, and the matter of
retranslation here in St. Mark must be taken into account.
Observe the amotwm of n. Under avaxvdwdew or ανακυλίω in
the Lexicon the significant and only remark is Alex. κυβερν.
i. 7. Thayer gives also Alexis in Athenag. Leian. Dion Hal.
Plut., but under ἀποκυλ. Josephus and the LXX three
times. [See Postscript in Part II. Tisch has misreported δὲ].
avéavopeva (pro avtavovra ΠῈΦ wunc® vel av€avopevov
ACDLAW) by SB Laura‘? only. Even 892 has av€avopevov
and Paris” avfavovra. Om. 2?°.
NB would have “καὶ εδιδον καρπὸν ἀναβαίνοντα καὶ
αὐυξανομενα which seems simply to be a mistake (even if it
does refer to ἄλλα init.) which however both Hort and Souter
follow. Wiser are Tischendorf and Soden with avéavopevov.
ἄλλα init. is read by NBCLW 28 33 124 892. Even with
ἄλλα (pro αλλο init.) CLW 28 33 124 892 still give us
avéavopevov or avéavovta.
Opposition to the Rule “ Proclivi lectioni praestat ardua.”
vill. 16.
ix. 14.
pda pro exouev, This is distinctly the easier reading.
‘xa διέλογιζοντο προς αλληλοὺς (AeyovTes) ott apTtous οὐκ
ἐχουσιν." NSBDW fam 1 28 2°° 604 it?! (non syr) omit λέγοντες.
ἐχουσιν is read by BW fam 1 28 2°° 604 ὁ σε k (Ὁ ayav), a
ὃ ἀφο haberent, 35 haberent
ἔχομεν by the rest (ἐλαβομεν Paris”) with the Vulgate, while
copt = (dicentes) nullus panis iis,
syr = panis non est (nobis).
The matter turns on the omission of the word λέγοντες and
the original Aramaic expression for “have.” But when
Aeyoures is dropped eyouev becomes more difficult. Hence
apparently B writes eyovow (followed by W-H ἀὲ Sod) while
N holds eyouev with the mass, although it omits δὰ with
sah, which boh and syr retain.
ἔλθοντες ( ‘pro ελθων) ;
atSov (pro ev) lwpLawy 892 k sah arm W-H [non Sod!]
Mark
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 121
There is a difficulty here, and apparently overcome by the
‘“‘neutral”’ text, and hence opposed to the above rule of
preferring the harder reading. In the previous verses our
Lord discourses with the apostles who had been present at his
transfiguration. Then in verse 14 the majority of witnesses
read: καὶ ελθωὼν πρὸς τους μαθητας ιδὲν οχλον πολὺν περι
avtous...‘‘ He came to the disciples.” As verse 18 said “αλλα
eyo υμῖιν ᾿᾿ etc, some scribes perhaps jumped to the conclusion
that our Lord was speaking to the body of disciples (while the
record is of Peter, James and John) and thought ed@wv προς
tous μαθητας should be ελθοντες.
As a matter of fact syr sin t says ‘“When he came to his
disciples they saw”. ..using half of the change of NBLAWY
892 & sah arm, and showing that the difficulty was known and
ancient probably before B’s day.
The matter may be merely harmonistic (ef Matt xvii. 14,
Lue ix. 87).
Other passages bearing on this rule may be found under
“Improvement.” See ix. 41 ete.
Origen and B in conflict.
To complete the picture of an already composite text in B we must
consult Origen closely.
i. 15.
οτί Nc vg™ Orig 80} sin
καὶ Neywov ort Bete (Others Aeywr ore as AD une® sah goth,
so that B here has the longest text of all with a b boh)
. ἐννυχα NBCDLO'W min aliq 28 372 892 ete. W-H ὦ
Sod tat.
evvvyov A unc ef ΣΦ et Orig et 2° 604, et evvvyov Paris”
al. alig.
. εἐξωθεν B32 solt
εἕω Orig"® et rell
. pn βλέπωσι Orig et gr pauc. [negl. Orig von Sod]
βλεπωσι NB rell pl (W -- βλεπωσι και. Cf. syr sin)
. tet (pr loco) Origen plur., sed mas NBCLWA 7 28179 Sod
ibid.
ev τίνι (sec loco) Origen et NBCLWA 7 28 et Sod**.
This seems to be a question of “pairs” again, for D al.
change in the second case to ev ποία, having ti primo loco.
Origen’s quotation seems quite important here. W-H
naturally follow the apparently strong group against Origen.
+ Recte vid Burkitt et Merz. Male Lewis Horner.
122
Mark
CODEX B. AND ITS ALLIES.
iv. 34 fin. ewedvev avtas DW e-ff,1g7 and Origen (Om. THpore sah 1/2)
vi.
ibid.
Vii.
ibid.
viii.
1.
40.
45.
24,
θ.
12.
36.
ἐπέλυεν TAVTA NB reill et rell latt, sah boh, syr aeth
ἢλθεν ᾿Ρίων et Origen against historic present ἐρχεται
by NBCLA Sod et tat [non minn] (om εκειθεν και ηλθεν W)
κατα NBD 21 W-H Sod, but ava Rell gr Orig.
avipes p (pro ava exarov) W
“προάγειν NB gr plur
προάγειν αὐτὸν DN2® min alig lati et verss et Orig
προς βηθσ. NBDW plur
εἰς Bn Oo. Sod fam 1 28 2°* 604 Orig
— καὶ σίδωνος Orig" et DILAW Sod 28 2° a b fain syr sin hier
(Correct Merx p. 75 by adding W Sod 28 syr hier, and make
Orig: Orig™® 4s).
Habent NB rell et W-H Sod tzt.
Who is right? Orig >'s and DW 28 6 etc. syr*™ ™*, or NB Ὁ
εἰς την οἰκίαν οΟγὶρ et DW® Sod™ 71 179 2°* s** al.
εἰς οἰκίαν NB plur.
(Following this observe ηθέλησεν NA 2°? αἱ Orig and ηθέλε
BDW reli. Origen stops. at γνωναι, but NB Sod™* (alone)
write ηδυνασθη for ηδυνηθη).
An interesting matter occurs here referred to also under
“Historic present.” While NBD*L 892 W-H Sod have
παραγγέλλει the rest have παρηγγείλε (παραγγείλας Sod 2°),
Now Orig?*! says κακει μὲν κέλευει τους οχλοὺυς ανακλιθηναι ἡ
αναπέσειν ἐπι TOU χόρτου “και γαρ ο λουκας : καταικλίνατε avuTOus
ἀνέγραψε, καὶ ὁ μαρκος "επεταξε, φησιν, αὐτοὺς παντᾷς avax-
λιίψαι " evade Se ov κέλευει αλλαὰ TAP avy ehrEL TW - oXrW
ανακλιθηναι..
From this it would appear that Orig did not say Mark used
παραγγέλλει. He merely uses two historic presents to
explain the matter. If NBL followed this we have a good
key as to the responsibility of Origen for much that has been
attributed to the “neutral” base of NBL. [Observe I leave
D® out, because he is contradicted here by all Latins but ἰ
and five vulgates.] Apparently then ἐπέταξε is St. Mark’s word
according to Origen. This makes a further complication in
our troubles as to a Latin or Graeco-latin original for Mark.
c and ff, use jussit here, but elsewhere in Mark vi. 27, 39,
ix. 25, they use praecipio with the rest of the Latins for
ἐπιταάσσω. Ati. 27 onthe other hand inperat is generally used.
At any rate we find NB and Origen disagreed here at viii. 6.
σημέιον emitnree Orig and many with W, against ξητει σημεῖον
of SBCDLA.
wperee NBL ἃ 892 anq W-H Sod ἐπέ
ὠφελησει All the rest and Orig (ωφεληθησεται 33 Paris”, cf syr)
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 123
Mark ‘
viii. 87. Soe N*B W-H tat . δὼ XL Sod *
doce Orig rell omn.
ix. 1. τῶν ἐστηκοτων ὧδε 1 sah boh Orig [cf b de circumstantibus
mecum (—hic) δ᾽! ; —hic ὁ r et ἃ (D")]
WOE των EGTNKOTWY B (syr sin aeth)
τῶν woe εστ. ἐξ al.
2. εν tw προσευχασθαι avTov Sod 28 2Ρ5 c& Orig"
+4, 5 + avTous W fam 13
Omit NB γε
3. eyeveTo NB unc® et W® Sod’
ἐγένοντο AGKLNVXW‘TT et = :
γίνονται Orig
eyevevovro Ὁ
x. 18. wa afntat αὐτὼ Longe plur et W Sod™ et Orig" “ κατα
μὲν Tov ματθαιον wa τας. «κατὰ Se τον ἡδρβον, twa ἄψηται
αὐυὐτων." κατὰ δὲ τον λουκαν, va αὐτῶν απτηται.
sed tva autav ἀψηται NBCLAW Sod 124 862 Evst 49 y** al.
pauc, et Paris” et f5 W-H. In the light of this, when we meet
A 124 Evst 49 Paris®’ elsewhere with NBCL does this inspire
confidence in them as supporters of NB? It merely indicates
a similar text faithfully copied, but the group is to be treated
as one eclectic group, not as a tenfold authority. They stole
the Lucan order here and created a hiatus in Mark to do it.
And we know they did this, for they substitute αὐτοὺς of Luke
and Matthew (see under “Harmonistic”’) for τοὺς προσφερουσιν
of the great majority of authorities at the end of this very verse.
20. εφυλαξα AD 28 892 Clem Orig
eduratauny NB rell (εποίησα 1 2” Sod!" syr sin)
29. ἡ μητερα ἡ matepa = BCAW® Sod al. pe.-et txt. Boh sah 1/2
ἢ πάτερα ἡ pytepa ὃξ rell et VW Orig™® quamvis Marcus
.-cum dicit qui dim. patrem et matrem...
35. οἱ δυο veoe BC Paris” sah boh aeth. No others,
not even WV, and Orig with δὲ and the rest flout the proposed
addition. (Soden however quotes Origen for it.)
46. epyeras (p70 epyovTar) D min? a ὃ ἃ fhe got 7 syr sin
diatess Orig’ contra rell.
ibid. εκειθεν (pro ἀπὸ tepryw) D2? tabdffr,taqr goth
Orig™s contra rell
ibid. ἐπαιτων D Sod®? 2° Orig (et rpocarrwv A plur W2® verss
plur)
mpocatns NBLAYV 892 k W-H & Sod txt [sed ef. Merx
p. 130] Om. C* Paris®.
48. οὐ πόλλοιυ §=Orig (ef sah) No sik add οὐ but B* has avros
+ Male Tisch de 28. Habet 28 avrov sed W avrovs. Om, Orig von Soden,
1 Errat Muralt de 2°°? amo ιερειχω habet Belsheim nec aliter Cronin. Vide Sod.
124
Mark
24,
ibid.
41,
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
πολλοὶ for avtw or avrov πολληι. Sod does not quote Orig or
Clem.
Cf Clem" lib ἀμέλει καὶ των ἐπιβοωμενων Tov κυριον avToV oF
μεν TOAKOL.«.
. αὑτὸν φωνηθηναε Orig"® cum plur et W, contra NBCLAY 7
892 Sod‘ et Sod’ φωνησατε avrov cum boh.
. See remarks elsewhere (pp. 4/5) about Origen’s double text here.
. ἀποστέλλει NBD* mult οὐ syr bc 1 W-H Sod, sed αποστελει
ubique Orig (ter vol tii, et vol iv) cum GUIT et W®Y [non 2]
a ὦ [contra D®| f fa 929 7 ὃ vg sah boh arm aeth.
-. τι τῆς ὥρας Be cum tam exc 1454 (Ε. abe t Orig rell)
. SB and Orig at variance here also.
. φαγοι NB ete.
ayn DW ete Orig"
. avOpwmos τις εφντευσεν αμπέλωνα Orig et W fam 13 2°° Sod!"
c syr pesh aeth al. pauc.
ἀμπέλωνα avOpwros εφυτευσγν NBC(L)APY etc.
_ (Cf. rell sub “* Two or more recensions.’’)
Origen is specific as to ἀποκρίθεις evrev for Mark against edn of
NBCLAY 88 892 Paris” Sod“ & Sod copt, that thoroughly
representative group, all hanging together for this (as on
several previous occasions) an apparent improvement. Syr
pesh joins this group here, but is opposed by syr sin’ which
takes the side of the Latins and other Greeks and Origen.
D Orig wn yewwokovtes pro μὴ edotes of the rest and W.
This seems to be a clear case of retranslation by Origen.
See p. 159. In Matthew (xxii. 29) esdores is used.
eotas Orig diserte bis (κατα papxor) cum W Sod fam 1
fam 13 28 2°¢ ϑο "5331 arm syr sin, contra καθίσας NBD et rell omn
et latt copt syr pesh diatess (ex Marco) Hiat goth.
I would like to point out here that syr pesh and diatess arab keep
with NB and the mass against syr sin and Origen. One should remember
this place when praising syr sin elsewhere if it supports NB and contra-
dicts syr pesh. The-matter here is of course irreconcilable.
Mr. Sanders does not record this place as to W in his notes
on p. 80 owing to his self-imposed limitations (see p. 74).
xii. 41.
48.
xiii, 8.
xatrevavtt Orig” with N and most, but arevavts BUY 33
71 179 280 348 Sod" [non Sod] Paris” only.
ἢ Xnpa ἡ πτωχὴ avtn Orig? et ΣΦ Sod” 7 604 Qe Hygztingue
Sod) 1216 a δ d 4
(contra ἡ xnpa αὐτὴ ἡ πτώχη ὃδὲ8Β rell et WY)
αὐτὴ ἡ χήρα ἡ πτωχη 28 Cf syr, et 21 k (-- πτωχη)
ἜἝκαι tapayas Orig 418 (“ Marcus addit et turbelas”’) contra
NBDLY Sod'** it (praeter 4) boh. This is a square division,
with sah on Origen’s side and most Greeks, but practically
Mark
xu. 11.
abid.
xiv. 10.
ibid.
B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 125
all Latins go with NBDL against him. 'W however comes to
his rescue and has it (“‘ecovtar σίσμοι κατα ToTrovs * λιμοι
tapayat”’) as also SP Sod.
Orig here goes with W 28 fam 13 91 299 2P¢ Sod’**" k for exewva,
against τοῦτο of NB and most, and avro of D* 6. Unfortunately
b is here mutilated. Small as is the place, the fact that Origen
with W 28 contradicts NB plur shows a possible foreign base f
(with D* ¢ opposed to d) and b’s testimony would have been
most useful for control. As to 91-299 they are really part of
the 1 family, but 1-118~-209 apparently have rovro, so that
this family is divided amongst itself, but fam 13 holds
together. Compare this place with xii. 24 above.
. Orig and all επαναστησονται, but B Sod®™ exavacrncetas (as
BA 28 Sod at Matt x. 21) with k exsurgebit.
. ποιήσουσιν TT). Sod? QP° min" a ἃ et Orig™ (rouse... «ποιεὼ
contra XB rell δωσουσιν
. + (ante oe) NBCLAY 892 Sod? 309 fam 44 οὐ Sod ἢ ὃ sah
boh aeth against all the rest and Origen.
pecovuxtio Origen with Hipp? Σ 238 511 604 ec Sod’ and
latt media nocte, against varying forms in the rest.
ὁ εἷς (pro cis) NBC*LMY 892 Sod***'* bok against sah
the rest and Origen (who was with them just above in dropping
ὁ before ἐσκαριωτης with att).
Neglect προσηλθε here of Origen alone for ἀπηλθεν of the
rest (ηλθεν Ii) as the πρὸς following no doubt accounts for
Orig (libere).
19 fin. Habet Origen καὶ addos pnts eyo cum D unc? ΣΦ minn™
63.
xv. 1.
ibid.
Sod it” contra NBCLPAWY copt syr aeth.
+evbus ἊΝ 124 2°* 604 a sah arm Orig (syr sin) against the rest.
ἐποίησαν Orig D3 Sod® 245 2P* Sod 13371442 eo Jatt (contra
B plur wownoavres, et NCL 892 soli cum Sod‘ ἐτοιμασαντες).
amrnyayou Orig CDOGNW [Hiat ®] al. paue. (latt) [contra
απηνεγκαν NB plur'].
ἡ See below, xiii. 35 μεσονυκτίω.
CHAPTER IV.
CONCERNING THE GENESIS OF THE LATIN VERSION OF
St. Marx’s GospEL.
“ This (Western) tect was translated into Latin before the time of Tatian, and the
primitive bilingual in which the translation stood is a document of patriarchal dignity
and largely capable of restoration.” —Harris, ‘Codex Bezae,’ p. 177.
“ But, beyond this, when translations were made into Syriac and Latin (the former
certainly, the latter probably, as early as the middle of the second century) the attention
of scholars was necessarily directed to the difficulties in interpretation of the text, with
ats occasional archaic expressions, obscure words, and harsh constructions; and the
practical usefulness of a simplified and modernised text was suggested.”—Ramsay,
‘St. Paul the traveller and the Roman citizen,’ p. 25.
To put the matter into as few words as possible, before the new
Greek ms W was discovered my studies had already led me to consider
that the ancients were probably right when they said that St. Mark had
both preached and written his Gospel in the Latin tongue [see sub-
scriptions to the Syriac vulgate and to some of our Greek manuscripts].
But this ms W in St. Mark is ἃ perfect mine of wonderful information
on this subject.
My impressions to-day are that the Gospel of Mark was written
originally in Latin and in Greek, and circulated separately—that the
Latin went to Latin Africa—thence to Greek Egypt, where it was
translated into Greek. [But see the quotation further on from St. Jerome
in connection with the testimony of Clement of Alexandria.] Hence a
double Greek recension visible all along the line. This matter appealed
to Blass, for he says (‘ Philology of the Gospels,’ pp. 203 and 205), “Τὸ
use a simile: reading Mark (with due attention given to the variants)
reminds one of walking on quicksand ...., for the difference of readings
mainly rests in the expressions and does not affect the sense. But,
nevertheless, we feel unsafe and wonder in what way such a condition of
the text may have been produced.... But one of the authors seems to
be Luke. Well, and then? Did Luke perhaps interpolate or revise
Mark? No, but he translated it, as the original Mark was in Aramaic,
or had it translated for his own use, and then revised the translation. At
a later time Luke’s copy got into circulation and was again copied, and
those copies went side by side with copies containing a translation made
by somebody else... .”
Thus Blass. I do not think there is much which points to an
Aramaic original. The whole matter can be understood if to St. Peter’s
Semitic background we apply Mark’s Latin surroundings when he wrote,
but Blass clearly apprehended the double Greek recension and was
striving to account for it.
THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 127
As to D®, a and d.
At first it seemed as if d@ were the king, but there are certaiu
independent features in D™ which stamp it as of almost equal importance. f
For instance in Sir John Hawkins’ list of words peculiar to St. Mark’s
Greek, we find among them (p. 200) επιράπτω and επισυντρεχω, but in
D* for επιράπτει (11. 21) that Ms has επισυνραάπτει and W* εἐπισυναπτι.
So that this form emo vy applies to another word in the Marcan Gospel as
well as επισυντρεχω. Ἐπισυνραπτει stands opposite adsuit (the Latins
hardly vary here at all) and adswit can scarcely have influenced emovp-
parte: or επισυναπτει. Excepting emovvayw (Matt., Mark, Luke) no
other verb in the New Testament is compounded with ev:ovr-, besides
ἐπισυντρέχω above mentioned, peculiar to Mark’s Greek text at ix. 25.
For this the Vulgate and most Latins have concurrentem, but a =conlisissit,
while b di =concurreret, f ff2 =concurrit, k = concurrunt, Φ =concurret,
and 6 =concurrebat. [pamre: 71 only in 11, 21.]
Of course D* of to-day is not the exact original of D*® foundation
text. We have a splendid illustration of this at xii. 88 in one verse.
D* (against d) adds ava. This a (alonet of Latins) maintains with the
addition of semul. But two lines below D* goes wild (against d’s Latin
et qué volunt) by writing καὶ τῶν TeXwver (for των θελοντων). This a
opposes, having quit volunt. The addition of e¢ in dis due to some curious
reaction ὃ which, however, did not conform d to D*® or D® to ὦ, so that we
have the opportunity to, observe a process at work which is quite
interesting. This is followed in the same verse by another illustration
which seems helpful. For D® 2° add ποιεισθαι at the end of the verse
as ὦ facttis, so that D® ἃ hold together. How do the Latins stand ?
The Greek expression is: καὶ aovacpous ev Tats ayopas dependent on the
original τῶν θέλοντων. A few cursives only add φίλουντων before ασπασμους
(borrowed from Luke) as do syr pesh and syr sin, while sah repeats τῶν
θεέλοντων (Δ. "50 Eso wed) as arm and 6: “qui volunt salutari’’ but ὁ
abandons aoracpous (τους aaracpous sah boh) or salutationes of b d e for
salutari of akigrs [above arracuous| thus making a composition of
salutationes and salutari and adding volunt. Here therefore ὃ ἃ ὁ have
+ From this Greek the Latin of a seems to have been made, quite independently of
ad. For a beautiful although infinitesimal example see vi. 18 licet te says a, and so D*
alone: ἐξεστιν ge right opposite d: “‘licet tibi.”” All other Greeks and Latins use σοι
and #bi. So in other small places, as vi. 85 ndn δὲ Τ)5 2P° 604 a, but καὶ ἡδηὴ the Greeks
and d. See xii. 87 ibentissime for libenter by a and D d: καὶ ydews. In the very next
verse xii. 88 a follows D* alone, against d, for a has simul alone and D* apa alone. At
ix. 81 Ὁ ὦ (as we have them) make bold to remove the apparently pleonastic aroxravOes
(following ἀποκτένουσιν), The only support is from x°* y*" and ack. All Greek uncials,
including WY retain, as do 6 and the rest of the Latins. That a is found bere with
D is significant, Here ὃ doubtless holds the base and not ὦ,
} As we pass through the press von Soden teaches us that his new Greek ms 050,
sister to D, does not have aya. But he obscures the Latin issue by grouping ab τ
together, whereas ἢ» ὁ do not have simul as a. Sod™ has ποιεισθαι fin.
§ Add for +xa ante των Gedovrwy von Soden’s ε 1091 (Sinai 186, Greg. 1223).
128 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES,
the simple salutationes dependent on the original qui volunt; against
salutart of atk gr δυο. Wearrive at the conclusion then that ποιείσθαι
and facitis of DB Sod°™ 2°* and d is a late accretion to both D and ὦ, for a
rejects it, unless indeed salutari of the others is supposed to be a composi-
tion of ασπασμους ποιεισθαι, but then salutare would have been used.
At xiii. 14 D adds τι avayewwone: after 0 avayewooxev voeito.. ὦ also
adds quidquid legit and n quod dicit, while d has quod legit, so that although
Ὁ d.here are together, D* here probably reacted on ὦ latin, as d differs
from a ”.who probably translated from D’s Greek. At xiii. 22 ὦ has
facient with d and D Sod™™ 2°° ποιησουσιν against δωσουσιν of other Greeks
and Latins. xiii. 33 a alone follows D®* against ὦ and all else omitting
eotw fin. (Cf ὁ which however turns the phrase.)
I wish to add here a most important matter which I think has never
been pointed out before. Where D and d differ we can frequently
discover, by the help of a, which reading is basic and which is not in
D or d.
Thus at xiv. 1 Ὁ ὦ and a ff, and only these omit καὶ ta αζυμα. This
occurs in connection with one of St. Mark’s well-known doublets or pairs.
ἣν δὲ τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄξυμα.ἱ We know from the absence of other D d
sympathisers like 2° etc ¢ that this must be a correction to remove apparent
pleonasm, but how came both D and d to excise the words? The answer
is that Greek D reacted here on small ὦ. We know this because it is the
Greek of D and not the Latin of d which a habitually follows. Further
proof offers in the same verse. D* and ὦ ὁ omit ev δολω but d has it.
Here therefore D® did not react on ὦ latin, although a, as usual, follows
D’s Greek. There are several other places where at first sight a would
seem to strengthen the small combination D a d, but as a matter of fact
it is now proven that D simply overflowed back as a (wrong) influence
on d, and a is merely an accessory and a witness that this influence came
from D* only.
This is well illustrated again at xiv. 25 where D Sod*° 2* have ov μὴ
mpocOw mew as ὦ (differing in latin expression from d@) d and f only, for ov
μὴ πίω of all others. This Greek of D, found only in a/ otherwise,
must have flowed back on to d.
The retranslation of a (and & and sometimes ἢ is often illustrated.
It occurs again immediately after at the opening of xiv. 26. he Greeks
maintain καὶ vurncavtes, the Latins and the vulgates “ et hymno dicto,”
but exceptionally :
a = Et cum hymnos dixissent
ὦ = Et cum lJaudem dixissent
k = Et cum heminum dixisset
t Only ¥ Sod'* vary the order nv δὲ ra αζυμα και ro πασχα, while ἢ r, do not like the
doublet and have pascha azwmorum or azemorum as vg® and (gat).
1 Von Soden’s 050 appears also to go against Ὁ ὦ a ff here.
THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 129
7 = Ktcum hymnum........t
ὦ = Et ymnum dicentes
ὃ = Et umnisantes
In the same chapter again at xiv. 82 D a d alone substitute αὐτοὺς
(illis) for tots μαθηταῖς αὐτου of all others.
At xiv. 44. ὦ (and c k r) go with D® only εδωκεν (δεδωκεν Sod™) by
writing dedit for dederat of all others and ὦ.
But at xiv. 47 Dad together omit τῶν παρεστηκοτων showing D* has
here influenced d.
At xiv. 67. where D® alone omits καὶ before ov, we know it is an
error, because ὦ does not follow.
At xiv. 70. -- τω werpw D a ὦ,
and 72, --οτι πρὶν adextopa φωνησαι dis με atrapynon D a d, they
are seen together.
Further, when, as at xiv. 48, both D and ὦ omit ws and tanquam
before ew ληστην, we must assume this to be a common error in the last
copying of the Ms, as neither a & nor any others omit. We thus learn
that at the last copying even, an effort was made to bring Latin and
Greek into conformity.
And when » replaces a (as it does from xv. 22 onwards) we must
note that n does not support D®™ at xv. 34 ὠνείδισας with ὁ tk (?) but has
me dereli{quisti] against them. Thus probably D® and ὁ ὁ & are con-
spiring in an error against the mass, and controls the old D® as a did
before.
Observe the independence of n throughout this section, and especially
xvi. 4 amotum for revolutum of the rest of the itala, which although
agreeing with the ἀποκεκυλίσμενον of 1)5 (ὦ = revolutum) against αποκεκυ-
Atorat of most, yet appears to hang on a different treatment.
Note also at xvi. ὁ where D(W) has φοβεισθαι (for exOapPerobe) and ὦ
temere, that n follows suit with timere against expavescere of the others
(ὦ stupetis).
As to ὃ:
The most important Latin witness in St. Mark for ‘“ control” is ὃ
[& is wanting i.—viii.] a feature which Buchanan has quite forgotten to
mention in his new and valuable edition of 6.t The text of ὁ (far
removed from ff in this Gospel) is a most ancient one. All the O.L. join
{ Observe in Mark iii. 82 (where exa6yro bothered ἃ ὁ so much that they deliberately
alter the sentence, although no others know any different verb) that N alone of Greeks
has πρὸς αὑτὸν οχλος (for περι αὐτὸν oxdos). We look to ὦ and find circa ewm turba as
the rest of Latins. We look to D and find προς τον oxdé and do not understand it.
But ὃ says alone of Latins ap illum turba, so that δὲ ὃ are giving us what Ὁ means to give,
roy standing for avroy. See Harris, ‘ Study of Codex Bezae,’ page 20, where he shows
dov for Aoyov twice and Aes for Aeyers. Add λεις for λέγεις John xiv. 9 and frum for
fructum in ἃ at John xv.2. We find even πε for περι (Me. v. 27). (Cf. xiv. 58 τὸν ναὸν
(—rovtov) De alone against hune templum by d opposite.)
K
130 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
D dso largely in Mark as a unit (with the exception of a) that it has a
very deep significance. But 6 goes farther than this and invites inspec-
tion as to the fundamental ὦ text sometimes preserved in ὃ where d has
lost it. As toa the condition is quite different as sketched above. It
would seem as if a had been independently translated into Latin from a
Greek which had already been made from the original Latin.
Long and long ago critics found certain Latin words graecised
especially the property of St. Mark, as σπεκουλατωρ, κεντυριων, Eeorrns,t but
explained them away. Siz John Hawkins calls attention (p. 182) to v. 23
ἐσχάτως exe, saying in a note ‘This expression is condemned by
Phrynicus, see Thayer’s Lexicon,” but if retranslation from the Latin
‘‘in extremis est ’’ it could not very well be rendered ἐσχατως ἐστιν. As to
θυγατριον mentioned just above this, filéola isfoundin e. Now the problem
is both simplified and complicated by some of the extraordinary agreements
of W* with ὁ latin. How it will all work out I cannot say at present.
It is quite unnecessary to repeat that St. Mark probably wrote his
Gospel at Rome for Roman readers, and it is beside the mark to say that
Greek was the current or polite language of the city or that the names
of the early leaders and Popes were Greek names. The oral Gospel
appealed first as thoroughly to the oppressed servants and slaves of the
Roman households as to their masters; and what was the language of
the common people? Of the converted butchers, bakers and purveyors
to these households? Of the masons, blacksmiths, carpenters etc? Of
the Christian attachés and employés of the baths and places of public
entertainment? The catacombs tell us, and the inscriptions speak in no
uncertain voice that the Latin and Greek tongues were in a state of flux
in St. Mark’s day. We find Greek words transliterated to Latin, and
conversely Latin words expressed in Greek letters. We find φηλικίσσιμος
for felicissimus, βιξ for bixit or virit, perso for filio; or cosmou for κοσμου,
ttaira for eraipa, Theos for Θεὸς and so forth. In fact some could speak
Greek but only knew the Latin alphabet, others, while knowing enough
Latin to speak it, could only write the Greek letters.{| Hence a Latin,
+ Cf also Mk. vi. 8 μη εἰς τὴν ζωνην χαλκον (“neque in zona aes”) as against St.
Luke (ix. 8 “pyre ἀργυριον᾽"). Cf also Mk, xii. 42 λεπτα δυο o ἐστιν κοδραντης (duo
minuta quod est guadrans,” the lowest Roman coin) as against St. Luke (xxi. 2 “ dvo
λεπτα tantum, praeter D +0 ἐστιν xodpavrns”’).
1 We find the very hybrid graeco-latin words bisomus, trisomus and quadrisomus in
common use in the catacombs (to the exclusion of other expressions) for burial space for
two bodies, three bodies, and four bodies.
Sometimes A occurs for D throughout ἃ Latin inscription (see No. 142 in Marucchi
and others).
We come across such a thing as this:
KALEMERE DEVS REFRI
GERET SPIRITVM TVV®
VNA CVM SoRoRiS TVAE HILARAE.
Or benemerenti, et, and φειλιε in the middle of a Greek inscription, and observe
the Greek rho in benemerentt.
THE LATIN VERSION OF ΕἼ, MARK’S GOSPEL. 131
or ἃ Graeco-Latin written Gospel seems a priori to have been perfectly
natural and called for under the circumstances; and not necessarily a
bilingual, but two separate editions, one in Greek and one in Latin. The
Latin original, if represented by 6 and d, seems to have parted company
with the Greek original very soon if not immediately. It reappears in a
and part of & to some extent, but a isa fresh translation from the Greek
as k seems to be in many places.t The consensus of Latins with b ὦ
AHMHTPIC ET A€ONTIA
CEIPIKE ΦΕΙΛΙΕ BENEMEPEN
ΤΙ MNHC@HC IHCOYC
O KYPIOC TEKNON.
We find septem (ZEPTE sic) with ANN in the middle, at the end of a Greek
inscription :
EPMAICKE @WC Z
HC EN GEW KYPIEI
W XPEICTW ANN
WPOYM X MHCW
POYM ΣΕΡΤΕ.
In the middle of a Greek inscription (Marucchi No. 844) occurs BONI@ATIE,
From the catacombs of Domitila, observe two Latin lines followed by Greek in
Latin letters :
ANNIBONVS FECIT SIBI ET SvVIS
LOCVM HOMIBVS Ν νι}! INTRO FORMAS
€C TON EMON PANTON TVTO €MON.
This lasted a long while. There is a Latin inscr. in Greek letters throughout,
dated 269 a.p.
KWCOYAE KAYAIW €A MATEPNW NONEIC
NOBENBPEIBOYC ΔΕΙ Ε BENEPEC AOYNA XXIII
AEYKE @PIAIE CHBHPE KAPECCEME MOCOYETE
EA EICNEIPITW CANKTW) TOYW.
On the shorter and earlier inscriptions such Latin names as Flavus or Flavius,
Septimius etc are written in Greek characters :
For instance: PA - CABEINOC - KAI
TITIANH - ΑΔΕΛΦΟΙ
And again : CENTMIOC MPAITEZTATOC
ΚΑΙ KIAIANOG
Or ANNIA " @AYCTEINA
Or ANNIOS KATOE
Or AIKINIA PAYCTEINA
ΤΑ good example occurs at xiv. 54 where the 23 uncials and W write ἣν σὺν (or
avy) καθημενος but D tt vg qv καθημενος. Tischendorf observes ‘zt! vg erat sedens,
sedens, sedebat; & accurate fuit simul sedens,” but he should have said...k ex
graeco fuit simul sedens.” The Latins all hang together against any consedens or
simul sedens except k, which as we thus see is bringing back his Latin into conformity
with the Greek, while D* alone follows the Latin.
K 2
132 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
shows that the Latin as an entity remained knit together. With the
Greek it is quite different. D reappears in Egypt in W but with
modifications incident to a passage of d through Carthage previously,
where it had become modified to ὁ and e. The Greek of NB is quite
different again from that of DW, although δὲ shows occasional traces of
W e, and B of W or D. Did the Greek of D perish by shipwreck or
otherwise on its way to Alexandria? ft Or did they use at first only
St. Matthew and St. Luke in those parts? The early Fathers are
strangely silent as to quotations from St. Mark.
Among one of the first distinct quotations from St. Mark (v. 34)
it is noticeable that Clem4'™ gives us ἀπελθε evs εἰρηνην for ὑπαγε εἰς
eipnynv. [Luke says πορευου.1] The Latin is vade. See later for remarks
as to Clement in connection with what St. Jerome says of Mark’s
personal arrival at Alexandria, bringing his Gospel with him.
As toc:
ce is also a valuable adjunct for control as to the original base
bcde. Its glosses are reproduced by W*, and it has many Egyptian
characteristics. Whether it ever had an accompanying Greek column
we do not know, but the corruption per labia for per manus in vi. 2
probably arose from confounding χείλεων or χείλων with yeupwr. One
thing is very certain, aeth and ὁ are very close in Mark. Among other
places observe Mark vi. 88 -- καὶ γνοντες ὁ aeth and syr sin. The latter
adds force to the basic age of the recension.
Then, as shown beyond, Tertullian and aeth share the otherwise
unique reading in xiv. 13 invenietis hominem for occurret vobis homo.
Besides this ὁ and Tert are in apposition in other Gospels.
A curious coincidence occurs at Mark ii. 26, where for εἰσηλθεν, W
alone substitutes εὐσελθων, not supported by our Latin witnesses, but by
Jerome with ingressus (Ep ad Pamm: “Idem Marcus inducit ad
Pharisaeos salvatorem loquentem ‘Nunquam legistis . . . quomodo
ingressus domum Dei sub Abiathar .. .’”).
St. Mark in the Irish Latin tects.
One striking fact deserves notice, and that is that when the Irish
text of the four Gospels was copied St. Mark’s Gospel alone appears in
almost pure Vulgate dress. Why was this? It must be concerned with
t Observe v. 87 παρακολουθησαι DW fam 1 28 124 Qe 604, ἀκολουθησαι AKTI*
al®, συνακολουθησαι NB rell. While the Latins use sequi, W elides per αὐτου, and 6
has introtre with Sod™ εἰσελθειν. But the point is that παρακολουθησαι bears directly
on the wording of the end of Mark, for at xvi. 17 παρακολουθησει occurs, avd this has
been challenged as not being a Marcan compound or occurring elsewhere in the Gospel,
wheress DW corfirm it in Mark v. 37, at any rate as to their Greek.
THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 133
the irreconcileable differences observed between the two separate Greek
lines or recensions to which I wish to direct attention. Not being able
to decide to follow the itala, so largely interwoven with the b d base,
which disagreed with the Greek line of NB, except in spots, it was
evidently considered judicious to swallow St. Jerome’s revision almost
completely for St. Mark. That there was a reason for it is obvious.
Have we found the true reason in assuming a double Greek recension ?
This must be further investigated, but I see no other outlet.
Base of St. Mark’s Gospel.
So much has been written concerning St. Mark’s Gospel that it may be
thought that the subject is threadbare. This hardly seems to be the case,
but I would fain bring forward something new if possible. "What I suggest
has already found circuitous admission by other minds. For instance,
in Sir John Hawkins’ Horae Synopticae, p. 207, after referring to the pro-
portion of classical and non-classical words in the four Gospels, he says :
“‘ It thus appears that the non-classical words (like the non-Septuagintal
words) occur with considerable more frequency in the special vocabulary of
St. Mark than in those of the other synoptists.”
In other places he agrees with most authorities in giving priority to
the Marcan Gospel as regards its foundation, where roughnesses, not of
diction but of the manner of presenting facts, have been smoothed by
St. Matthew and St. Luke.
Taking these two observations together, they make for a later Greek
than that of Matthew and Luke, with an earlier base. Now if that base
be Latin the matter is to a large extent explained. Little things like
exyatov (Mark) for vorepoy (Matt. Luke) then assume a greater force
than we have been disposed to give them.
Sir John emphasises the historic present as being one of Mark’s
strong preferences. Indeed, this also bears upon the point. For the aits
of d often bear opposite in D® eirev, while the itala coincides with the ait
of d.f Further than this, where the strong Alexandrian preferences for
the historic present and imperfect over the aorist make themselves felt
{ This matter deserves considerable attention. Compare Dr. Nestle's too brief
notice of the subject in Journ. Theol. Studies, July 1911, p. 607, and consider the figures
given for ὃ and ὦ in St. Mark in connection with such a Roman writer as Plautus, whose
plays are crammed full of até and ais and aio. Cf. Amphitruo I. i, 188-189.
Merc. Ai’ n’ vero?
Sos. Aio enimvero.
Mere. Verbero!
Sos. Mentiris nunc jam.
Mere. At jam faciam ut verum dicas dicere.
Sos. Quid eo ’st opus?
Notice also the frequent appearance in Mark of epyerac (for the indeterminate Latin
venit, present or perfect) against the synoptic ηλθεν.
134 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
in NB in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, it is different in
St. Mark, and although I chronicle a fair number of these additional
Greek historic presents for δὲ or B in St. Mark, the situation is more
confused there and sometimes the aorist is preferred to the imperfect.
Before we can deal with the list of ‘‘ Rude, harsh, obscure or unusual
words or expressions which may therefore have been omitted or replaced
by others” (op. cit. pp. 1381/4) we must consider more fully what the
Latin texts have to say, and variations in Greek mss. Thus, as to the first
example,
i. 10 σχίξομενους, did St. Mark himself really use this? The Latins
ba f f29: σι ἢ lr rz & (hiant ὁ 4) all say apertos (even ὦ adaperiri,
δ aperiri). So D* sol.
Then, ii. 4 ete xpaBatros. This surely belongs among the Latinisms,
cited lower down.
As to ii. 21 ἐπιραπτει, we must observe D’s emtovyparre: and W's
επισυναπτι as to retranslation, or as to two lines of Greek.
xi. 1. εἰσιν τινες ὧδε τῶν εστηκοτῶν, “an awkward arrangement of
words” says Sir John Hawkins, but the mss vary here
considerably. (See ante p. 100.)
xiii. 11. μη προμερίμνατε, “ ἃ verb not found elsewhere in N.T., LXX,
or classical writers.” But if cogitare were original we can
understand it. (ὦ here retranslating, as usual, has prae-
medetare (cf. προμελετατε V3), k exceptionally satagare but
both a and & have been influenced by Greek recensions as
compared to the other Latins in St. Mark).
16. 0 εἰς τον aypov, a very probable Latin construction.
xiv. 31. εκπερίσσως f “is found nowhere else in Greek.”
Perhaps from a Latin colloquialism “tanto magis” as indeed
re-rendered by ὦ (while & has “‘ plura loquebatur magis dicere”’
against amplius of most vett).
xiii. 19. evovrar yap at nuepas exewat Ornpes (or θλυψεις). This is far
more difficult, in fact insoluble from our available Latin
materials, which do not agree with the Greeks, who here seem
to be a unit, yet an original dies illi tribulationes, meant for
dies illi tribulationts which ὁ ff, ὁ | hold, might have led to the
Greek, which is opposed bya ὃ dk nq r “ (in) illis diebus
tribulationes ” and which in these may not represent an original
base but revision.
Unfortanately, for such Greek words—unique in Mark—as σκωληξ,
στασιαστῆς we have no synoptic parallelisms to use for purposes of exact
comparison. στασίιαστῆς of Mark xv. 7 (μετα των στασιαστῶν δεδεμενος)
is however beautifully confirmed by St. Luke’s δια otacw (xxiii. 19).
{ It is exceedingly curious to find that the notorious latinisers 56-58-61, apparently
alone among cursives, join NBCD¥")” for exwepicows. Add Paris*.
THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 135
σανδαλια Mark vi. 9 (not appearing in Sir John Hawkins’ list of words
peculiar to St. Mark, probably because it occurs in Acts xii. 8) may be
emphasised as compared to the ὑποδήματα of Matt. x. 10.
In Mark ὦ i have sandalia, ὃ f | ¢ = sandaliis, so that probably soleis
of a, soleas of 6, caligulas of ς, galliculas of ff, are retranslations.
ὑποληνίον Mark xii. 1, unique as to Mark and as against Anvoy of
Matt. xxi. 83, is indeterminate.
In Mark bcd Κ 9. ἴ (g locum) ὃ vg have lacum (a ff, ἃ k torcular).
In Matthew a 6 ὁ d (ὁ torcularem) ff; g 1 4 vg have torcular (ff, ἢ
lacum).
Lacum would appear original in Mark, and torcular in Matthew.
But it is almost impossible to draw any inferences, although υποληνιον
may be considered more probable for lacus.
Important example of harmony among the Latins at St. Mark vi. 36.
One of the most striking places is the εἐγγίστα of D 604 and ail latt
PROXIMAS at vi. 36 against κυκλω of the other Greeks. Not a single Latin
tries to express κυκλω otherwise here in Mark.f But now turn to the
parallel in Luke ix. 12 and see a very different state of things. The
Greek of both passages is the same:
Mark vi. 86. ἀπολυσὸον αὐτοὺς wa amedOovres εἰς τους KUKAW ἀγροὺς Καὶ
KOULAS
Luke ix. 12. ἀπολυσον τον oydov wa πορευθεντες t εἰς TAS κυκλὼ κωμας καὶ
αἀπέλθοντες aypous...
(Matthew omits κυκλω.)
In Mark then the Latins have: in proximas villas et vicos.t
But in Luke a = adjacentes vicos et agros
be fil qr = cirea castella et villas
» = circa castella et vicos
ὁ = in castella adjacentia
d = in proxima castella et villas
ὃ = in circum castella et villas
J = in castella et villas quae in circuitu sunt
vg = in castella villasque quae circa sunt
I submit that this has a distinct bearing on a common Latin base in
Mark of proximas, and acommon Greek base in Like of κυκλω, when
we see in Linke the variations circa, adjacentes, adjacentia, prozima, in
t Cf. also xi. 82 ηδεισαν (pro eryov) DW Sod 2° and odacr 604 = sciebant of it”
against habebant of all vulgates. The proof of retranslation is here afforded by 604.
Ὁ All have in prowtmas. a = in proximas villas et municipia
bef H2q = in proximas villas et castella
ὦ ὁ Ξ in proximas villas et (- in 2) vicos
7, = in proximas villas et vicinos
a in vicos "
(από 64 Δὲ = {εἰο TOUC KUKXW ALPOYC } 5.0
136 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
circum, quae circa sunt, and quae in circuitu sunt, against the steady
proximas in Mark.
For the rest I must refer to the following lists.
And first as to Retranslation in W.
The following is a list of some of the apparent retranslations in W.
It is startling enough, but there is much more to be observed.
Mark
i 1, 27. εθαυμαζον (pro εθαμβηθησαν)
44, καθαρσιου (pro καθαρισμουὴ
ii. 4. προσέλθειν (pro προσεγγίσαι)
12. Oavpatery avrous (pro εξιστασθαι παντας)
23. εσπαρμενων (pro σποριμων)
iii. 11. ov (pro εθεωρει) [Negl. Sod. W. Male Sod. de D edov, habet
eBewpovr |
30. exer avtov (pro exer)
84. κυκλω αὐτου (pro κυκλω τους περι avTor)
iv. 4. ta opvea (pro τὰ πετείνα)
20. πίπτοντες (pro σπαρεντες)
82. av&e (pro avaBawver)
v. 81. cuvrpiBorta (pro συνθλιβοντα)
vi. 5. ouxere (pro exet ουδεμιανὶ)
18. εξεπεμπον (pro εξεβαλλονὴ
81. λοίπον (pro ολυγον)
vii. 10. αθετων (pro κακολογων)
19. διανοιαν (pro καρδιαν)
81. εἰς τὴν δεκαπολιν (pro δεκαπολεως)
33. προσλαβομειος (pro «πολαβομενος)
viii. 11. am (pro παρ)
23. evirrucas (pro πτυσας)
ix. 8. περιβλεπομενοι (pre περιβλεψαμενοι)
11. τι ovy (pro ors prin)
82. epwrnoa (pro etrepwrtnaat) (al)
45. κοψον (pro atroxowov)
49. αλισ ynOnoerat (pro αλισθησεται)
x. 22. απο του Aoyou (pro emt τω λογω)
85. αἰτησωμεθα (pro αὐἰτησωμεν)
xi. 12. αυριον (pro εἐπαυριον)
25. avn (pro adn) [ Negi. Sod]
80. am (pro εἕ pr.) (al)
xii. 1. εξωρυξεν (pro και ὡρυξεν)
3. edipay - καὶ arrextivay (346)
10, 26. aveyywxate (pro aveyvere)
Kili. 2. αφεθη οὐδε διαλυθησεται (pro καταλυθη)
12. αναστησονται (pro eravactnoovrat) (848 Sod'**)
xiv. 6. κοπὸν (pro κοπους)
THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 137
Mark
xiv. 27. σκορπισθησεται (pro διασκορπισθησεται) [ Negl. Sod]
30. ἀρνηση (pro απαρνηση)
32. eEepyovras (pro ερχονται)
58. συνπορευονται (pro auvepyovrat avtw) (Sod’**")
61. evrAoynpevou (pro ευλογητου) and so Ψ 28 ce
70. περιεστηκοτες (pro παρεστῶτες) (cf. a)
εἰσέλθουσαι (pro ἐλθουσαι)
. θεωρουσιν (pro εἰδον)
In ch. i.-v., where the ¢ and ὦ ὁ 6 sympathy is paramount, the
retranslation is very thick. Afterwards it shades off but does not
disappear. What is there is not only retranslation from Latin, but from
the other Versions. Of these 45 cases only 5 find any support.
Observe also in 111. 1 a genitive absolute καὶ εἰσέλθοντος αὐτου for καὶ
εἰσῆλθεν, which cannot come from the parallels, and must be from ὦ ὁ ὁ
“et cum introisset.”” The others have “et introivit.” Cf ix. 28, where
for “et cum introisset” of all Latins the Greeks only vary between
εἰσέλθοντος αὐτου and εἰσέλθοντα avtov.
Consider also γίνεται and eyerero:
At iv. 87 D writes eyevero with which Tisch groups all the Latins, while
ψίνεται (so W) is the reading of the other Greeks. But
observe the reverse at :
ii. 15. yeveras only NBLW 88 2°° 604 892* W-H ἀ Sod tat, and
eyevero D and all the rest. [Om. Sod®®.]
It seems clear that factus est or facta est or factum est is
rendered either ywveras or eyevero. And the way in which the
MSs occasionally go apart looks like a Latin base out of which
the variations sprung.
When I published Evan 604 it became apparent that there was a
reason for the Latinisms in that ms, when we took into consideration the
sympathetic bond between D 2°* and 604. It became clear to me how
ancient was this Latin base. Lest some should still think that the
Latinisms and evidences of retranslation in 1 13 28 2°* and 604 are late,
I have exhibited first a typical list in the great Ms W.
Now there is much less of this in 28 and not more as we come down
the line, as far as actual age (not actual text) is concerned. But to show
how the matter is interlocked I will exhibit these examples.
We find in 28 at:
i. 19. κατασκεναζοντας (pro καταρτίζοντας), but this is visible in 124
[non fam] although not in W.
xli. 34. συναίτως (= ovvetws) pro vovveyws apparently unique by 28.
xiv. 1. κρατησωσιν καὶ (pro κρατησαντες) = latt syrr (et Sod minn').
As to 28 and 604:
iil. 14. Here 28 and 604 conspire alone to give us περὶ avrov (pro per
avTov)
XV.
vi.
vi.
vi.
ix.
XVi.
. 22,
3.
37.
42,
6.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES,
As to 604 alone:
. λίαν (pro δωςτυα)
. ἐλάλουν (pro edeyor)
. λίμνης (pro Garacans) (Cf. Merx de λιμν. et Oar.)
. ετηρησὰν (pro expatnaav) [Cf. D vii. 4 τηρεῖν alone for xparew]
. ovdace (pro ηδεισαν DW; sciebant lat)
2P¢ alone :
. αὐτοῖς (pro pet avtwv), where D 33 604 Paris® have προς αὐτοὺς
Om. Sod®™ 4, Om. μετ αυὐτων καὶ Neyer 273.
are and 604:
. wa φαγωσιν (pro φαγεῖν sec.) Οὗ. α ὃ ᾳφ. Cf. syr sin.
. emOers (pro τιθεις)
. ἀναστήσεται (pro eyepOnoetat) [Sod adds 5350]
. kav (pro καὶ εὖ Add Sod®° 8" and D («az ear)
D 28:
. Onrafopevats (pro θηλαζουσαις)
D QP;
. ἐν μεσὴ TH θαλασση (pro εν μ. τῆς θαλασσης)
. ἐστιν ἢ καρδιὰ (pro ἐχετε τὴν καρδιαν)ὺ Add Sod
. wa θανατωσουσιν (pro εἰς το θανατωσαι) et ἃ Sod™ Laura 14
Ὁ 604 =
. εγγίστα (pro Kkuxdo) latt™ proximas
D 2” 604:
. καὶ ἐλαυνοντας (pro ev Tw ehavvew) [Sod adds 559 ?]
. πλατείαις (pro ayopats)
W 604:
. ηδυνηθησαν (pro ἰσχυσαν) Add Sod™®
W 28:
. Kndeyoat (pro Kat npav)
. ἐγείρεται (pro avacrnoerat) Add Sod}
. διέλεχθητε (pro διελογιζεσθὴὶὺ Add fam 1 and Sod'**"
. επισυνστρεψουσιν sic et W et 28 ( pro ἐπισυναξει vel eriouvatove)
[Male Sod de W]
. διηκονουσαν (pro καὶ διηκονουνὴ W ; διακονουσαι 28 [Recte Sod.
Male Scholz διακονησαι}
ἊΝ 28 2° 604:
ὦ ovoua (pro ονοματι) [Negl. Sod 604]
D(W):
ὡς (pro om) Cf. W
εν TW ονοματι (pro ert tw ov.) Add 69 Sod** in nomine latt
εβληθὴ (pro βεβληταὴὶ
DW 2?°;
φοβεισθαι (pro εκθαμβεισθεὲὲ Add 115
THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 139
and such a thing as in N:
NW Sod 1 13 28 2° 604:
xii, 41. + ov (ante yarxov) [Add Sod", Negl. Sod & ut Tisch om.
ed]
orin C:
vi. 19. εζητεν (pro nOerev) C latt
or in Δ;
xul. 8, avte εθνον (pro em eOvos) A*; so contra gentem ὃ ὁ d δὲ
vg", adversus gentem ᾳ. [Sod neglects A*: A*!?° has er
εθνος supra but as an afterthought. |
or Origen:
xii. 24. γινώσκοντες (pro adores) D Orig alone (ef. latt veté)
not to speak of N, which has a good many personal retranslations, but
they are involved frequently with parallels.t
At any rate the matters in question are all easily reducible to a very
early age.
As to a thing like xii. 18 ἀαναστασις οὐκ ἐστιν fam 1 13 28 [non DW
rell| for avactacw μὴ εἰναι this is probable retranslation, but has no
reference to other features.
‘We will now allow to follow a list of some of the evidence for a
double or treble Greek recension in St. Mark as opposed to what comes
very near a single line among the Latins.
If ever Bishop Westcott’s dictum} holds true it is as regards the
authorities for St. Mark’s Gospel. It is useless to seek the truth in any
one document here, and although D d have an ancient base, ὃ is found
to share it and go beyond them in brevity, while W in connection with
ὃ ὁ & and the other Latins is absolutely essential to a true understanding
of the mixture (old as it all is) which pervades the text. NB alone
here are more than useless.
Ἷ It does not seem necessary to tabulate the many unique retranslations of D* from
Latin, as they are so well known, although I know of no complete list.
$ “No authority has an unvarying value. No authority is ever homogeneous.’
Compare also Blass (‘ Philology of the Gospels,’ pp. 58 and 70): “ In reality the blame is
to be cast upon the textual tradition and not upon the author, and we may learn from
this quite evident case that those written copies (not to speak of editions) which we are
accustomed to rely upon by no means deserve implicit trust. Which copies, then, do
deserve it? No single copy at all, but if anything the tradition taken as a whole, with
entire liberty to select in each individual case that branch of the tradition for our guide
which shall seem to us to be in this case most trustworthy, even if it is a heretical
witness like Marcion.”
“ΟΕ course, the fact that πρώτη in one of these passages, and Λιβερτίνων in the other,
is almost universally attested, is not to be understood as being the result of one great
deliberate action, viz., of a revision of the text made at a definite time by definite men,
and then imposed upon the whole Christian Church. If such a revision had taken place
in the ancient Church, like those revisions which have been made for instance at different
times in the English Church, we should certainly hear of that fact from some of the
numerous ecclesiastical writers whose works have come down to us.”
CHAPTER V.
Two OR MORE GREEK RECENSIONS ΙΝ St. Mark.
‘We have now shown reasons for believing that the whole body of Western Latin
readings go back into a single bilingual copy, the remote ancestor of the Codex Bezae;
and we have also seen that the Greek of the Beza owes the greater part of its textual
and grammatical peculiarities to the reflex action of tts own Latin.”—Rendel Harris,
* Codex Bezae,’ p. 171.
“There are cases where a book or paper, whose actual results cannot be accepted, is
far more valuable and suggestive than many statements of certain and indisputable facts
are. Hicks’ paper is one of these cases; its value in method is quite distinct from its
value in results.”—Ramsay, ‘St. Paul at Ephesus’ in 'The Church in the Roman
Empire,’ p. 118.
The very imperfect suggestions cffered in my ‘Genesis of the
Versions,’ vol. I. p. 28 seq., are much more fully illustrated here. Any
examples which seem beside the mark are amply compensated for by
others which show a definite Latin background.
ark
fi. 6. δερρην D* pellema (Cf. p.127 seg) | vestem depilis 7 (syr)
tpixas = rell gr et ἃ
Ti. 7. καὶ ἔλεγεν αυτοις Dda(r)
Kat exnpucoey Aeyov — rel
16. tov αδέλφον avrov DGT et WA 28 33 372 al. it? vg syr aeth
᾿ "» » τοῦ σίμωνος E*PHKSUVIT e¢ ΣΦ αἱ.
mult goth slav
ὃ; »» τοὺ σιμωνος ΑΕΔ min™
ΕΣ » σίιμωνος NBLM z™ αἱ. } a 7 ὃ copt arm
24, οιἰδαμεν͵ NLA® 892 bok (hiat sah) arm aeth Orig”* Orig
Eus™* Bas Cyr Chr" Iren™ (Teat?™ t) Hil” Aug al. Sod’
oda BD reli e¢ W2® minn omn rell vid, latt omn et ὃ
[contra ΔΡῚ syr pers goth W-H**
81. εκτεινας τὴν χείρα κρατήσας nyetpev avTny Db dr q (-- αυτην)
(f ταυτηνὶ
ηγειρεν αὐτὴν κρατησας τῆς χείρος ΚἘοϊϊ et al. lat (tenens e)
εἐκτίνας τὴν χείρα καὶ ἐπιλαβομενος eyeipey αυτν W
ii. 15. γίνεται NBLW 33 2” 604 892*
eyeveto D reli (Om. Sod) factum est Jatt
23. Svatropeveo Oar BCD
Tmopever Oat W fam 13 Sod | Cf latt
mapatropevec Gat δὲ plur
26. μετ αὐτου DW= Sod 2re 604 αἱ
συν avTw NB rell ct ®
t But such circumscribed divisions I do not add to further.
¢ But Teri™** ‘scio” doubtless ea Luc iv. 84 and Tert*™* probably refers to Luke iv. 41.
Mark
ill. 3. tw την Enpay yetpa ἐχοντι
ibid.
wbid.
12.
GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 141
NC*A Sods Tisch αὐ tat
ΒΑ) 2° 892 a boh sah
Tw THY χείρα exovTe Enpay
aeth (syr -- εχοντὴ Treg W-H tat
tw Enpav exovTt THY χείρα 33
τῶ εξηραμμενὴν εχοντί THY YELpAa Une al. et ΣΦ txt rec. et
Tisch vii.
τῶ eyovTe THY χείρω εξηραμενὴν D cf lat
Tw εχοντι THY χείρα Enpay
τω την xELpa ExovTL εξηραμμενὴν 28 124
τω τὴν εξηραμμενὴν χειρα exovte Sod txt ABSQUE ULLA
AUCTORITATE.
. εἰς DHP 131 209 238 y** 2°
al*® Paris®”
ἐπὶ Σ αἰ. 9 [non apud Sod}
προς NB plur et WP 1 al. mult ) Lat: δὰ
τς ἰ sic 118
προς
παρα fam 18 28 Sod
. ἀκούοντες NBA et W fam 1 fam 18
892 2°° copt W-H Sod | audientes latt”!
ακουσαντες D* yell pl a syr arm
. OTAVTES X (of lat stantes)
OTNKOVTES BC*A 28
εστήκοτες C’°GL fam 1 124 604 892 Sod?**
εἐστωτες DW rell gr mann et 2°
καλουντες NBC et W118 28 892 W-H Sod
gdwvouvtes 0 rell (λάλουντες 2°°)
SyrouvTes A
vocantes latt
Om. Asa
ἐν ΟΝΟ μενον; ee oe crescentemcd f,ilgrs
αὐυξανοντα II unc® et ΣΦ by ee sncresc eaten: τ
28 minn txt rec. (nue ee)
cumincremento ὦ (om 2°°)
αυξανομενα NB soli et W-H R-V (De ἄλλα init ??)
. οὐ pabnras αὐτου DW Sod fam 18 28 2°° tt omn (non f ) syr™”
ou περι αὐτου συν τοις Swdexa NB rell omn syr pesh vg copt aeth
τίς ἡ παραβολὴ αὐτὴ DW Sod fam 18 28 2° ἐξ omn et f
Tas παραβολας NBCLA 892 e¢ W-H tat (syr sin)
την παραβολην A unc! et ΣΦ et Sod tat
De parabola illa vel de parabolis illis syr boh (coe) et sah
των παραβολων
αφεθησομαι D* ἃ f,i gr vg* aeth (αφησω 10")
αφεθη NBLA unc® et WE Sod” Orig 1/2
adeOncetat AKII min alig Orig 1/2 (sah boh syr)
142 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
iv. 15. αφερει D
epee W 28
aptrafer SCA (Matt.)
aupet B plur
(it! vg aufert vel tollit, auferet ὁ d ἰ 4)
21. epyerae = Pluret syr peshlqvg Om. Sod™
adfertur 0b aeth accendit
arrerat D (vis duplex) : luc. et afferet
καίεται ὙἹ sah boh τὲ pt ] “ (@ccenditur)
81. οποταν WwW
0 οτί αν D
οταν S
os oTay B plur
ὡς οταν ΟἾΔ
82. av&e W ber (cf. ὁ 4)
αναβαιτει NB reil pl
Om D dit, habent καὶ γίνεται tantum
89. φιμωθητι W bce ff,
σιωπα καὶ φιμωθητι D* aeth sah boh vgA¥t
σιωπα πεφιμωσο NB rell, ἃ et latt rell syr (hiat sin)
σιωπα φιμωσο L (Om. claus. Δ δ]
νυ. 3. μνημασιν SABCLAII unc® Sod® Cf xv. 46 et
μνημειοις DH al. et W xvi. 2.
6. προσεδραμεν W dbecetgq,r (occurrit)
εδραμεν NB rell οὐ D™
19. amaryyethov NBCA® Paris Sod *- #14 e¢ tat
διαγγεῖλον DW fam 1 18 28 604
αναγγεῖλον A rell et ® minn pl et 2°
+ 22. προσεπεσεν D*, εἐπεσεν Sod’ } prociditabef f,lqrs vg
προσπιπττὶ W fam 13 (procidens ὦ)
πιπτει NB reil et Sod et cadens ὁ
26. αλλα μαλλον εἰς TO χειρον ἐλθουσα Plur et W (vide post)
iy » €1b TO χείρον ἔλθουσα Sod Qr¢ 604
1» ὅπι TO χειρον (—edOovca) D*
ἃ and f ρι have sed magis deterius habebat, but ὃ ὁ ff, only sed
peius habebat, e sed deterius haberet, g 7 sed deterius habebat, a? sed
peius deterius habebat, 5 sed magis in deterius venit.
D alone seems to elide the verb. Possibly the expression ἐπὶ was
supposed to be sufficient without it (cf. syr™*" mut syr), but 2°° 604
retain ἐλθουσα. Coptic retains the verb.
I give this at length because there has evidently been trouble about
the double eAouca in ver 27 jin and ver 28. In the following verse 28 a
large change of order obtains as to the position of ἐλθουσα. Indeed W
+ This marks the extreme limit of e’s great influence on W heretofore in Mark.
GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 143
(alone) makes the one serve for both: ἔλθουσα καὶ ἀκουσασα περὶ τον εὖ ev
τῶ oyhw οπίσθεν mato αὐτου eliding the second ελθουσα, as D does the
first.
But as there is a slight space in W after eA@ovoa we must treat the
omission as in ver 28. We then get this result:
W και axoveaca περί του W εν TH οχλω ηἡψατο αὐτου
D 2 ακουσασα περι του εὖ ἔλθουσα οπισθεν καὶ ἡψατο του ἐμ. αὐτου εν
τω οχλω
d audito de ihu venit de retro et tetigit vest. ejus inter turbam
4 » » 9» oy retro et tetigit vest. ejus in turbam (εἰς Tov
οχλον fam 13 28 N=)
a cum audisset de Jesu venit a retro et tetigit tunic. illius inter
turbam
q audito de itu venit retro et tigit vest. ejus inter turba
b Pe Ξ ἐπ » in turba et tetigit vest. ejus
NB plur axovoaca Cia NBCA Lost 33) περι του wW ἔλθουσα ev Tw oyrw
omtabey mato . ‘am 1 Sod'™ 1694 @ om ev Tw οχλω.
xX
Mark v. 36. τὸν λογον (+ τὸν B) ἀξ λλυμενμι Plur
ToUTOV τον λόγον Ὁ late"
Latin = audito hoc verbo etc, but b simply audito. It looks
as if the differences arose simply from translation from Latin.
Amplified in retranslation by copt and vg as: “ Jesus autem
verbo quod dicebatur audito.”
ibid. παρακουσας NBLA® W ὁ 892*? W-H Sod txt [ Male Sod de 2°]
ακουσας AD rell omn Sod” et 2?° (e stl. Cronin) et verss
87. παρακολουθησαι D™ W fam 1 28124 Ἐν: bears on the wording
are 604 of Mark in xvi. 17
συνακολουθησαι NB rell et Sod” | παρακολ.
ακολουθησαι AKII* minn alig; εἰσέλθειν Sod, ὁ introire.
2. δοθεισα τουῦω =NBCLA 892 W-H iat
δοθεισα αὐτώ 0 rel et W et Sod tat
The Latins have tlle for the most part (δὴ ὦ e) and re-
translation is a more probable influence here for this change
than anything else.
5. exe ποίησαι οὐδεμίαν δυναμν = NBCLA fam 1 [non 118] 273
892 W-H (ex. ποι. ovdeutv sic Sod”)
exer ουδεμιαν ποίησαι δυναμν Dad Orig’* Hier
exer ουδεμιαν δυναμὶν ποίησαν <A plur fam™ et Sod trt [Male de
fam")
sed οὐκετι ποιησαι δυναμιν W (exes)
9. See Latin and five varying Greek forms.
19. quaerebat abcdigqr (hiant 6 k) et εξητει C*
volebat FT ff2 1 8 vg et Gr omn rell et WA ηθέλεν
20. axoveas Une et plur
aKovoy 28 157 Paris®” min al audiens b fir
axoveas ig much more correct here, therefore how came axovey
into 28 al. except via Latin ?
144
Mark
vi. 24,
25.
36.
40.
50.
51.
55.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
του βαπτιξοντος NBLA* 2°* [non 28] + Sod’! e¢ Sod
του βαπτιστοῦ DW rell omn minn et latt copt
tov βαπτίξζοντος Τί 604 892 only!
του βαπτιστοῦ NBA 2? yell!
εἐγγιστα Ὁ 604 e¢ tt vg proximas (praeter om. Habet
vicos supra κυκλω !)
κυκλω NBW reli
[Observe in this verse +a before ayopacwow D* alone
apparently with Paris”; d has δέ not ut]
κατα exaTov Kat κατὰ πέντ. NBD 21 boh (literatim) W-H Sod.
ava 5, 5, ava ,, <A rell unc minn et sah (literatim)
P (—ava prim) καὶ ava NW (—avasec38clr Orig) —ava bis a.
The Latin per...per serves for this, and there could not be a
more certain place for bohairic influence than this. Boh uses
KATA--.- KATA literatim, while sah has naA...MA& OY NAM
.. taut. W also uses ava (once) and not κατα.
eAar, wet avtwv Plur, but ἔλαλ. προς avtous Dt 33 604,
and autos 2°°. “Ad eos” ad f ff, 1 q 7, Ad illos c, but ὃ =
“illis.”
I refuse absolutely to connect this with a “ provincialism ”
as Gregory and Souter imply by their criticism of other
examples adduced previously. This is simply a double
recension, and ὦ seems to hold the original ‘“‘illis” (as 2°°
autos) whence per avtwv in translation.
In the verse following λίαν is omitted by DW3"4 Sod “4 1 28
273" 604. Here W comes to join us (rather exceptionally
hereabouts) and with ὃ ‘abundantius” (against the latin plus
magis) witnesses to ἃ base without wav. The Latin plus
magis, or magis plus of ὁ can equally well be a translation of
the Greek ex περίσσου or ex περίσσως (περίσσως Ὁ) without
λίαν. I see two recensions here. [Confuse Sod fam I*.]
χωραν NBLA Sod tm $4 33 802. Paris” copt W-H Sod tat.
(Again the same group which we have charged with other
matters hereabouts, so that the issue is very square as to who
holds and who does not hold the original base) against
περίχωρον DW une rell et ΣΦ et 28 2°¢ 604 minn.
The Latin of dis merely regionem it is true, as of ὁδὶ, but
b-q (together proving their base) say confinem regionis, so that
either this reproduces περίχωρον, or if regionem be basic the
double Greek recension is accounted for.
} Tisch quotes 2P¢ for κατα as does Horner following him, but Cronin does not
report this nor von Soden and Belsheim prints ava uncorrected by Cronin. As Paris” deserts
both N and B here (it generally sides with one or the other) xara seems pretty clearly a
preference of NBD, for Origen opposes with ava.
t Tisch writes αὐτοῖς here in error δα to D. Add Paris for προς avrous.
Mark
GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 145
ibid fin. Here are any amount of variations, all bearing on retranslation
vi. 56.
vil. 8.
ibid.
ibid.
. ἀκούσατε BDH Sod 21 2° 892 W-H ὦ Sod txt
and consideration, the actual basic reading being very doubtful.
καὶ οσοι (—av) SDA 1 88 Paris” Sod contra B rell καὶ
οσοι av (vel ear).
πυκνὰ NW Ob (subinde) f σε 1 vg goth copt
syr aeth
πυγμη BD(arvepn) rell et ΣΦ minn
(πυγμω Sod) et ¢ fri qr Orig
(primo d, momento a. Om Δ ὃ sah syr sin. Hiant ὁ k)
Subinde of b if basic, as is possible, may have caused the
trouble. At any rate retranslation is quite possible here. W
seems to show that 6 k probably opposed BD here, but what
they read must remain uncertain. [See my edition of the
‘ Morgan Gospels,’ p. lviii.]
cerebro pugillo aur
. pavriswovtat ὃὲξΒ 40 53 71 86 179 237 240 244 259 Huthym
Bantisovtas DA pl et W2® minn al. et Paris® Orig.
As to ραντιζω cf Hebr ix. 13 19 21 x. 22, but especially
(not in Concordances) Apoc xix. 18 ρεραντίσμενον P, ερραντισ-
μενον Hipp, mepipepavticpevoy N° and περιρεραμμενον N* (for
BeBappevov) showing that NB probably made a deliberate
change above at Mark vii. 4. In the Apoc the Latins agree
as to “sprinkling.” [C/. Merx, p. 70 ad loc. Me. vii. 4.]
τηρεῖν D i ἃ et it?! vg servare,
xparew ΒΒ rell et ΛΝ ΣΦ minn omn vid sed ὃ tenere
There must be a reason for these things, and that reason
has already been suggested. Unfortunately here a (which I
have shown elsewhere was probably retranslating from the
Greek of D) does not express it ‘‘ quae acceperunt tradita.”
Whether we are to regard b’s “‘ tenere”’ here as basic I do not
know. c has servare and 6 k are wanting. Above, tenentes of
ἃ latt = κρατουντες of all Greeks and D, so that tenere of ὦ
may well be basic, τηρεῖν simply D’s translation, and servare
retranslation from Ὁ. (Cf. ix. 10 ετηρησαν pro exparnoay
604 alone.)
. ταῖς χερσίν DW 28 2° soli vid | must indicate a translation
χερσιν Rell. change in all probability
axovere ὃξ rell et ἊΝ minn et Paris” mudite dart
. TOP OLKOY NA (D) al. pauc sah boh syr Co likely from re-
ouKov B plur et W translation
9. excepyeras De
εἰσπορευεται Rell et W (ἃ introiit wt latt rell)
ἐξερχεται D*
extropevetas B plur (wopeveras A, exopevovtat Sod” [ = Paris*"|
in ed. N.T. contra ed. Schmidtke)
L
‘Vii. 24.
33.
35.
CODFX B AND ITS ALLIES.
εκβαλλεταὶ ἀξ minn*?*™
χώρει W (cf. ἡ et boh)
ηλθεν M 28 218 2°* 604 Eust*® Orig
e&n ev LA (εισηλθεν 245)
απηλθεν Plur οὐ ὍΝ (ρει Latt)
προσλαβομενος W
απολαβομενος NBD plur minn plur et 2° Paris*” 892*
ἐπίλαβομενος ἘΠ 118-131-209 157 218 604 892** al” et Hust*™
AaBopevos A 63** Sod!"
adprehendens a ὦ δ vg, sed suscipiens ὁ d 7 7, accipiens ὁ q,
adcipiens f,, adsumens f
In these cases where the Latins vary so much,f there has
been already Greek reaction on them. We must assume
susciptens of ὃ dir or accipiens of ὁ ff, q to be the more basic.
Probably ¢ (= ek? which are wanting) =
ηνούυγησαν BA1~209 [non 118] 892 W-H Sod txt, ἡνυγησαν δὲ Ὁ
ηνοίχθησαν Ii Sod | Soa
διηνούγησαν 124 2°¢ 604 διηνυγησαν W
διηνοίχθησαν ΑΝ rell et ΣΦ minn pl et 28 Paris*
(The latin remains unchanged: apertae sunt, and none
apparently adapertae sunt.)
36 init. Here also praecepit of laté is uniform and the Greeks (including
viil.
tid.
bid.
διά.
37.
5.
6.
W) agree on διεστείλατοι Only A and Paris” vary with
ενετείλατο [A repeats at viii. 15 but not Paris®’].
Aeyoow NBL WA et W Sod™ 28 33 892 2°¢ Paris” W-H Sod™*
emwow D rell et SD minn pl
Although D ὦ ὃ ὁ ff, ἡ omit ocov Se avtous διεστελλετο, it is
noteworthy that W (which retains with the other Greeks
and a f σι 1 q vg) writes oow... = quanto of f 92 (quando)
vg so that even here W* sympathises with Latin.
περισσοτερῶς δ 61 604 δοα"4 435 362
περισσότερον B rell et W
υπερεκπερίσσως DU fam 1 485 604
ees γ᾿ umepreptacov Sod! Ο amplius Jat¢
T
umeprrepicaws == NB et ΣΦ minn pl vid
ἥρῶτα NBLA 892 Paris” W-H
ρωτησεν W
εἐπηρωτησεν M Sod
ernpwta Ὁ rell et ΣΦ Sod™
interrogavit it omn (praeter a interrogabat)
παραγγέλλει NBD*L 892 1 vgPPIA2Y WH Sod. vel παρηγγείλε
rell et latt®! praecepit (παραγγείλας Sod? ay
{ See the other Lists where they do not vary among ‘diansdeivoll
GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 147
Mark
7 ἐπεταξε Origen (=latt praecepit, vi. 27 39)
Vili. 7. παρεθηκεν N* tantum et Tisch
ἐκέλευσεν παρατειθεναν D (jussit latt sah aeth 9)
evrev παρατίθεναι BLAN®* 179 372 892 Sod? 41 442 W7- HT
Sod. (eurev παρατεθηναι A οὗ 1 (®)) of latt apponi
evrev Tapaewa, GM*NUVXII> et W 2? al. of syr copt
evrev παραθηνι HKFHKSW'T 28 al. mult
evrev παραθετε C 88 (Paris*’)
Cf verss. Male Tisch de d “ dixit pro jussit.” Habet d: “et gratias
agens dixit (0b D® καὶ ευχαριστησας pro καὶ εὐλογησας) et ipsos jussit
adponi.”
Cf composttionem et contextum in docum. diversis.
viii. 12. Syres σημεῖον NBCDLA Sod fam 1 28 88 2°° 604 892
Paris” W-H Sod.
quaerit signum a bed (quaeret) ff, 118 vg" copt aeth syr
σημείον επίζητει AN rell et ΣΦ Orig
signum quaerit fgi2q Ὁ vg goth arm
N.B.—Here, with differing order, the simple quaertt is constant
among Latins. This kind of thing is quite different from what occurs.
in the next verse viii. 18 where N= substitute caradurwv for ages.
This is simply ex Matthew.
viii. 15. opate βλέπετε NB most and WE (P:opate καὶ βλεπετε)
but Ὁ Sod 2°? fam 1 2 2°* omit opare, and A 604 omit βλεπετε.
The Latins (all except 67,941 gat aur vg) and syr sin only use one
expression, but this varies: a k vg™ syr sin using cavete
while: ὁ ὦ ff, ὁ q 7 use videte
tcavete
videte
In view of all that has passed before it is probable that either cavete
or videte is basic. Cavete may have grown out of videte, and opare
βλεπετε out of cavete.
viii. 17. mem. ἔχετε τὴν καρδιανυμων §=§ Pluret Wf gab ug (habetis)
Over opare in A stands
ἔχοντες 28
Ten. ἐστιν ἡ καρδια υμων D* aq syr
TET, ὑμῶν εστιν ἡ καρδια Sod? 2°
TET. εἰσι αι KAPOLAL υμων bed fat (hiat k)
[Male Sod. de W; non accurate de latt. et d].
Sah: your heart (is) hard. Boh: Is your heart hardened.
23. This whole verse shows signs of peculiar handling. D starts off
with λαβόμενος τὴν χείρα for erthaBopevos τῆς χείρος, as to
which, curiously enough, all other Greeks are agreed among
themselves for adprachendi manum of ἃ (adprachensa manu
of ack ὃ, adprehendit manum of ὃ 1 q 7, adprehendens manum
t ““παρατεθηναι is the reading commended by the tsage of the language.”
Buttmann, Blass.
L 2
148
Mark
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
of f #2 9121 vg). For του τυφλου W 1 28 2°° 604 substitute
αὐτου against Latin, 1 131 229 238 Sod'*4 3011 νἱὰ conflate avrov
του τυφλου, as diatess.
For εξηνεγκεν SBCLAA) 33 Paris” Sod 4° e¢ txt, the
rest and W have εξηγωγεν. The Latins vary between duzxit
(ὁ ὁ fa gat 7 gat), eduatt (ὦ f l8 vg), produait (a k), evcit (g).
Then W alone has evrrvoas for rrveas (exspuens lat?) and adds
καὶ before embers with G 113 28 273 Sod™ and a ὃ ὁ d against
D*. Paris*™ omits es before oupata. For avtw a few have αὐτου
but W er αυτω. For interrogabat of d and Latins, ernpwra
most, but npwra W 251* Sod'*, ἐπηρωτησεν NX, D® has
erepwra. For indirect question εἰ τι βλέπει of δὲ and most Greeks,
all Latins, and syr goth arm, BCD"A Sod 372 2°¢ Paris**
copt aeth substitute direct oration εἰ τὸ BAeres, and W has
εἰ βλέπει eliding τὸ, while k alone puts aliquit after videret.
(βλεπειν 13 [non fam] perhaps a good way out of the difficulty.)
Surely this must mean retranslation.
viii. 25 init. evra παλιν Greeks, but καὶ παλιν D and δὲ iterwm by ὃ
ibid,
bid.
26.
27.
28.
tbid.
29.
dfatkaqr (ὁ “et rursus ”’) syr sin.
Cf further remarks as to this under caption “‘Itala as a
unit.”
καὶ διεβλεψεν NBC*LWA* fam 1 28 Sod!
wat ἐνεβλεψεν (3 boh (of sah aeth aliter) et vidit k (syr sin Ὁ)
καὶ ἤρξατο ἀναβλεψαι θ δεοάαροε ει ϊνδυρ pers
καὶ ἐποίησεν avtov αναβλεψαν ANX unc οὐ ΣΦ αἷ. af q.
Om syr pesh.
kat ἐποίησεν avtov αναβλεψαῖι Kat διε ev fam 13 [non 124]
ote avaBrewar... D ἐξ og
καὶ & εν N Sod? 145 848 2Ρ6ς,ἢ, δ, καὶ εβλεπεν 244 syr
και ενεβλεπεν BL 28 18-69 273 ν W-H Sod, καὶ
ὲ ἄνεβλεπεν A* 346
Kat ave Ἐν sic W*, καὶ ἀανεβλεψεν Ἐ'Μ 124 157 αἱ.
καὶ ενεβλεψεν A unc" al. pl. (Om. Paris®’).
Compare the different recensions here in Tisch.
εἰς καισαρίαν Dabdfriqr
εἰς τὰς Kwpas καισαριας NB rell et ΣΦ. cf kl 8 vg
εὐπταν NBCLA Paris” (892) & ὃ copt syr aeth [non Sod***}
ἀπεκρίθησαν ΤῸ unc et WE minn it omn (praeter k 8) vg goth
(arm ut Luc ot δὲ ἀποκρ. εὐπάν)
οτι εἰς των Tod. NBCL 892 Paris” copét (syr) W-H Sod ἐπέ
[εἰς των προφ. 295 test. Muralt Tisch, non Belsh Cronin]
eva των προφ. A unc et W2® Sod minn et k ὃ
ὡς eva τῶν προφ. D Sod) 1442 ¢¢ wg (praeter k)
ἐπήρωτα αὐτοὺς NBCDLA 58 892 2? Sod? et Sod a fo ἢ
(ὁ) ὃ copt
GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 149
Mark
Neves αὑτοῖς A une rell et ΣΦ Sod bilrvg (f k)
goth arm aeth syr (edeyev Sod'**)
vill. 80. evrwow CDG Sod*"
λεγωσιν NB rell et W (Aeyouow) ΣΦ nvinn
33. πετρω NBDL 21 hi soli et W-H Sod tat (ef copt lat)
TW πετρω A une rell et W2® minn et Paris”
84. ee tes NBC*DLA et W fam 1 fam 18 28 115 183 2° 604
892 Paris” Laura’ 1! Sod*? 1089 1841 8m $8 Hyst 31 48
it vg arm Orig Orig’ Synops (Ath) W-H Sod.
οστις A unc rel? et ΣΦ Sod minn rell™ copt syr
ibid. ακολουθειν C*DX unc? οὐ W® 1 28 al’ it! vg
goth aeth (adhaerere acth'") sah et Sod txt
ἔλθειν NABC?-KLTAIIS3 αἱ. ὁ kl gat boh syr
arm Orig Synops et W-H
ἔλθει» καὶ ἀακολουθν Δ ὃ
ix. 2. avaye ὌΝ 2°, d βηριὶᾳφ k**? ὦ et ὃ (super Δϑ' avadepe) =
ducit. Rellabcfgnvg duxit, k* insefuit.
avadepes NB rell omn gr et ΝΥ ΣΦ Sod
3. τις D det bi (ανθρωποι syr pesh pers)
yvadeus NB rell gr et WUP minn (et 2” rell) copt aeth latt rell
Om. claus. KX an syr sin
[ Hoc loco incipit V]
6. αποκριθη BC*LA*Y 1 28 33 2°¢ [Male Sod de οἷ᾽ et 855] 604
892 Paris®” Sod ®™8 ὡς boh W-H Sod tat (απεκριθη & Orig”)
λαληση Οὔ Φ al. pauc | ac ff2 n ᾳ loqueretur, ὃ filr
λαλησει D rell pl et Σ v2 vg Tert aeth diceret
Aanree W. erare Sod”. Cf syr sah
ibid. expoBot yap eyevovro NBCDLAW Sod 33 892 2°° Paris”
Sod™*, of latt pl sah W-H Sod tat
ἧσαν yap εκφοβοι AN rell et ΣΦ ef fl g vg boh
(The point is not the order as much as σαν and eyevovto. Cf.
the Latin expressions. exd. yap noav ἃ Sod*!*5”,)
. eyevero φωνὴ NBCLAY 892 Paris” boh syr pesh et ὃ W-H
ἤλθεν φωνὴ D rell et latt om (non δ) goth sah syr sin Sod
[Om ηλθεν vel eyevero W 1.7 Sod'** k (c) ex Matt 9]
+8. e€arwa NB plur et WE® minn pl
ευθεως DW! Sod 28 66:58 69 2Ρ6 Θοζ1938 1448 (statim a ὦ gis
ilnr vg) (ὁ fz repente, f confestim, ἃ subito, ῳ continuo)
Om ὃ cum diatess; of Luc ix. 36
-
{ Note Marsh’s Michaelis vol. i. pt. 1. p. 144 as to the ‘ Alexandrian idiom in the
N.T.” where he says: εξαπινα which is used in the Gospel of 8. Mark and in the Septua-
gint (Lev. Numb. Josh. Isai. Psa. 2 Chron.) and of which Thomas Magister says that it
is absolutely no Greek word and perfectly spurious, has been found by Kypke in
Jamblichus (Protrept xx. 125). Not mentioned in Liddell and Scott.
150 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
ibid. adda ACLXVAIL unc® ef W® Sod minn® arm Sod
ει μὴ NBDN οὐ W°SV3 88 61 892 Hust 48 49 et Paris”
Sod* W-H txt (πολ. sah, ΕΘ ἨᾺ doh)
arr ἡ 27 Sod**! 84 Taura4’ 101 (teste Soden non Lake).
Latt omn nisi goth alja of syr wv AR
This is one of the most peculiar places on record. All the Latins
use nist. In Matt xvii. 8 the Greeks use εὐ μη. (in Luke it is different :
καὶ ev τῷ γενεσθαν τὴν φωνὴν ευρεθη ἴησους povos.)
If εὐ μὴ in Greek be original and not drawn from Matthew, or
translated from the Latin nist, why should all the other Greeks use adda
here, which corresponds curiously enough almost literatim to the gothic
alja (German ails) and to the syriac for nist. In St. Matthew where
the Greek is εἰ uy the Latins have again naturally nisi. But according
to all rules of criticism, as εὖ μη is the Matthaean Greek expression, ἀλλὰ
in St. Mark (being different) should be looked upon with favour (since
it could not be drawn from there) especially as W supports the other
seventeen uncials which use it and thus Soden acts here instinctively.
Very few minuscules support the e μη of NBDNW“¥ in Mark.
Sah uses eragutrs in Matt (against Mca in Mark) but boh uses the
same eur in Matt asin Mark; the syriacs use the same word in Matt
and Mark (in Matthew goth is wanting).
Of course Hort forcest εὐ μὴ into his text on the strength of
NBNW‘+D (to which add since his day 2W Paris®’) without a thought
of anything except that such a combination must be paramount. But it
is nothing of the sort. The syriac did not influence an ἀλλὰ in Matthew,
so why should it have any influence on ACK etc in Mark? That can be
ruled out. We are left to face either a translation by two Greek groups
of an original Latin nisi, or an original αλλα in St. Mark’s Greek. We
must look into this matter more carefully. Because the Greek of D
happens to coincide with that of NB here it need not worry us. On the
contrary, D would most probably thus translate the nist of d. Why does
C desert the NB combination here? Why does L desert it? Why does
ἊΝ desert it? Why does Sod® desert it? And why ®? Here Τι is
the most important witness of all against εἰ μή.
Nowhere else in St. Mark is adda translated nist in Latin. But
there would certainly be an excuse here in ix. 8 for nisi to be rendered
back into Greek by adda. The proper place then for this small matter
is here under the caption of ‘‘ Two or more Greek Recensions,” and once
for all it shows very clearly how the authorities are divided. That
W joins NB is perfectly natural. We have to explain the defection of
CL from the group and their adherence with ὙΦ Sod to the other
preponderating side.
As to an argument for retranslation from Latin, a glance at the other
} No other expression will adequately express the matter.
ou cr. i abe ee ‘ — ana ΡΥ a
= oe ae 7 7 Ἰᾶς “ ta —— i ᾿
᾿ a a = ¥ ᾿
sen 7 ἘΝ... ν΄ -“᾿ “a Pe Ὁ a Ἄν: τ 7
ae oO are eee Ve ee a
7 ne Ee ΠῚ ᾿ ΤΕ 9 5 ὦ 2
ΝΕ an Woke oe. eas oo 2.3 ..ὦ» ᾿ =e! . ¥
7 ᾿ ἐπ ᾿ πες a εὖ
» ee Re we een eer ae
. ie tan La a iw “4 oe . a owt i.
ΠΝ i ἡ ὌΝΟΣ 7
ὃς
coer 7 ts.
yee _ - a =
ae oe 7 oo. ia
— Ἂν Ὄπ ae ᾿
i "ΤΩ =e =: * ᾿ νὰ
= = κ᾿ nae ~*~ a aes caer. ὦ Nite 8
ee a ᾿ " το ΞΟ κ᾽ a hao σα, oe
ai 9 ca ae % Es ae 7
i i) δον ap 4 7 25 _ = ἂς ΨΥ οι
vi, a ἢ 7 ae iar ὦ - Tee. ων ἂν
ἐγ 7 7 ~~ Lae oe PhS yas, δ᾽ a
Peo elegy ee Pee Gee Δ on Se vi
πον ee ee ee
ΡΟ seca ea te do a
ee δ ie 2 oa 7 Cm τῶ
Ay.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
For those who are scholars, the Two Volume set
Codex B and Its Allies
(By University of Michigan Professor Herman
Hoskier - 1914) is still among the best
ΞΡ 9} ||} 9} }9} 161-16 [91 |5 9 5 19]
contradictions between Codex Sinaiticus
δηα Oxelel=> ME: liter: lal Ute
Author = Hoskier, H. C. (Herman Charles), b. 1864.
Title: Codex B and its allies
a study and an indictment
by H.C. Hoskier; Publisher London :
Bernard Quaritch, 1914.
Author Burgon, John William, 1813- 1888.
ἘΠῚ Ξε ΣοΞ ἸΠῚ ΞΕ) mm ial- mere) qa0)e)i(e)amelmial=
traditional text of the Holy Gospels; being the
sequel to the traditional text of the Holy Gospels.
Publisher London, G. Bell, 1896.
There is also the book the "Revision Revised”
by Oxford Professor John William Burgon
explains many of the problems
of modern what is called Textual Criticism
ifo)am ialeysi-m'2a(OMs\=1-1, ql 112119141{511912 5919}:
Ancient Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament.
UM alsssiste elele) ἘῊ Ξ- [τ 91} {-|8 τι ἐπ [5 9) τ 91} ἢ τῷ
Concerning History and the Early Church
A ACM [519 1.115 ince) mn 19}} Ὁ 519}.-|}1:{π|119191}.:}91-|: 1911}
the following books:
1) The Seventh General Council (held 787 AD) in which the
Worship of Images was established, with copious notes
ΠΟ 9. 00} Π|| 5} 97019).{|}919}}}15}}1-|9 ome) (ell aey i
Charlemagne by Rev John Mendham - 1850
2) Image worship in the Church of Rome by James Endell Tyler
The image-worship of the Church of Rome : proved to be contrary
to Holy Scripture and the faith and discipline of the primitive church
ΕἾ mn CoM ΠΝ 25) 1}. 5191}: {59 1191 191 a’ar-Uale Mla x Xero) arel|(-le)(-meleleqtalal-tom Tiamat
Church of Rome itself (1847)
3) Primitive Christian Worship by James Endell Tyler
Primitive christian worship, or, The evidence of Holy Scripture and
ilat-meqale| ceva Pmere)ater-vaaliale Meat Mmlanexer-\ile) aie) mcy-Ulalccom- tale m= lale|-) cpm vare mt al-)
blessed Virgin Mary (1840)
4) The worship of Mary by James Endell Tyler
Fo) Ha l=W ade) ol: Movi 115}... 5041} 919]5}: Me) 8. 141:-}9] 4:11: mela lateleley 4
Church
by Caesarious Tondini (1875) also makes for interesting reading,
even though it is a Roman Catholic work which was approved
with the Nihil Obstat (not indexed by the inquisition) notice.
THESE BOOKS are AVAILABLE For FREE ONLINE
Concerning Christians and Christianity
1, Christians are those who follow the teachings
of J esus Christ.
2. The Teachings of Jesus Christ are explained in the
book called the Gospel (Injil) or the New Testament.
3. The New Testament is the First Place to find and record
the teachings of Jesus Christ, by those who actually knew Him.
4. The New Testament has never been disproved
archeologically or historically. It has and remains accurate.
5. The New Testament Predicts that certain events will happen in the
Future.
7. The Reliability of the Old Testament and the New Testament are
clear indications of the accuracy of the New Testament.
8, 1 esus Christ did Not fail in His mission on Earth.
9. J esus Christ P re-existed. This means that He existed BEFORE
the Creation of the World.
10. When Christians worship J esus Christ, they are NOT worshiping
another Human being.
11. J esus Christ did not become God by performing good works.
12. Christians cannot perform good works in order to go to Heaven. Those
who want to find God must admit they are notable to be Perfect or Holy,
and that they need the help of God to help them get rid of their Sins.
14, More than 500 Million Christians around the world today are NOT
Roman Catholic. The Vatican does NOT speak for Christianity in many
situations.
Concerning Christians and Christianity (2)
sRopaelUlor-t-mol(om\LOMMne|[-Mlamla(-me)[-(e-me)mUI-\10(Sm Ol algo] mela
the cross.
16. Jesus Christ had no motive to escape his fate. Jesus Christ
was born to communicate His message of Hope and
Redemption for mankind.
17. Without the Blood of Jesus, it would be impossible for those
who believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, to have Eternal Life.
18. Christians worship ONE God, NOT three Gods.
19. In True Christianity, Historically, the Trinity is =
a) God the Father
b) God the Son
c) God the Holy Spirit
20. The worship of Angels or Created Beings, or Creatures or anything
except God (God the Father, God the Son [J esus Christ],
and God the Holy Spirit, is forbidden.
21. The Trinity IS NOT =Mary, J oseph and J esus
22. The Trinity is NOT = J esus, J oseph and God the Father
23. Gabriel is NOT another name for J esus Christ.
24. Anyone can become a Christian if they want to.
25. Christianity IS not something that can be done EXTERNALLY.
A person is a Christian because of what they believe in their Heart,
inside of them. Their own sincerity before God is the true test.
26. Those who acceptan electronic mark [666] for the purchase of goods,
in their right hand or forehead are NOT able to become Christians.
Concerning History and the Roman Catholic Church
mal 1 1 111 9111115|191}. 9 1- Κ 5151}. 9. 11}16}0 9} 1119]
can be found - in online searches - under the words:
papal, roman catholic, papist, popish,
romanist, vatican, popery, romish,
There are many free Ebooks available
01}: 310: 2 Ὲ|610761- 311-910 }.,-} 8.815 }- m6) 6) 0 Ὁ
There is of course the standard
works on the proven history of the Vatican:
The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, which uses
more than 200 ancient Latin and Greek sources.
The Roman Schism illustrated from the Records
of the Early Roman Catholic Church
by Rev. Perceval.
ΗΠ ΕἸ ΟΝ εἴν |- 3 1{91}}9}15- 11. τ α{6ἴΞ tame [970}}1141-}1:}919}}19|-|421215;
early Church Councils should conduct their own research
into a document called the "Donation of Constantine",
which was the false land grant from the Roman Emperors
to the Vatican.
Saved - How To become a
Christian
how to be saved
A Christian is someone
who believes the
following
Steps to Take in order to become a
true Christian, to be Saved & Have a
real relationship & genuine
experience with the real God
Read, understand, accept and
believe the following verses from
the Bible:
1. All men are sinners and fall short
of God’s perfect standard
Romans 3: 23 states that
For all have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God;
2. Sin - which is imperfection in our
lives - denies us eternal life with
God. But God sent his son Jesus
Christ as a gift to give us freely
Eternal Life by believing on Jesus
Christ.
Romans 6: 23 states
For the wages of sin is death; but the
gift of God is eternal life through Jesus
Christ our Lord.
3. You can be saved, and you are
saved by Faith in Jesus Christ. You
cannot be saved by your good
works, because they are not "good
enough”. But God’s good work of
sending Jesus Christ to save us,
and our response of believing - of
having faith - in Jesus Christ, that is
what saves each of us.
Ephesians 2: 8-9 states
8 For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is
the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should
boast.
4.God did not wait for us to become
perfect in order to accept or
unconditionally love us. He sent
Jesus Christ to save us, even
though we are sinners. So Jesus
Christ died to save us from our sins,
and to save us from eternal
separation from God.
Romans 5:8 states
But God commendeth his love toward
us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us.
5. God loved the world so much that
He sent his one and only Son to die,
so that by believing in Jesus Christ,
we obtain Eternal Life.
John 3: 16 states
For God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.
6. If you believe in Jesus Christ, and
in what he did on the Cross for us,
by dying there for us, you know fora
fact that you have been given
Eternal Life.
| John 5: 13 states
These things have | written unto you
that believe on the name of the Son of
God; that ye may know that ye have
eternal life, and that ye may believe on
the name of the Son of God.
7. If you confess your sins to God,
he hears you take this step, and you
can know for sure that He does hear
you, and his response to you is to
forgive you of those sins, so that
they are not remembered against
you, and not attributed to you ever
again.
| John 1: 9 states
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and
just to forgive us our sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If you believe these verses, or want
to believe these verses, pray the
following:
" Lord Jesus, | need you. Thank you
for dying on the cross for my sins. |
open the door of my life and ask you
to save me from my sins and give
me eternal life. Thank you for
forgiving me of my sins and giving
me eternal life. | receive you as my
Savior and Lord. Please take control
of the throne of my life. Make me the
kind of person you want me to be.
Help me to understand you, and to
know you and to learn how to follow
you. Free me from all of the things in
my life that prevent me from
following you. In the name of the
one and only and true Jesus Christ |
ask all these things now, Amen”.
Does this prayer express your desire to
know God and to want to know His love
? If you are sincere in praying this
prayer, Jesus Christ comes into your
heart and your life, just as He said he
would.
It often takes courage to decide to
become a Christian. It is the right
decision to make, but It is difficult to
fight against part of ourselves that
wants to hang on, or to find against
that part of our selves that has
trouble changing. The good news is
that you do not need to change
yourself. Just Cry out to God, pray
and he will begin to change you.
God does not expect you to become
perfect before you come to Him. Not
at all...this is why He sent Jesus...so
that we would not have to become
perfect before being able to know
God.
Steps to take once you have asked
Jesus to come into your life
Find the following passages in the
Bible and begin to read them:
1. Read Psalm 23 (in the middle of
the Old Testament - the 1st half of
the Bible)
2. Read Psalm 91
3. Read the Books in the New
Testament (in the Bible) of John,
Romans & | John
4. Tell someone of your prayer and
your seeking God. Share that with
someone close to you.
5. Obtain some of the books on the
list of books, and begin to read
them, so that you can understand
more about God and how He works.
6. Pray, that is - just talk to and with
God, thank Him for saving you, and
tell him your
fears and concerns, and ask him for
help and guidance.
7. email or tell someone about the
great decision you have made today
"Π
Does the "being saved"
process only work for those
who believe ?
For the person who is not yet
saved, their understanding of
1) their state of sin and 2) God’s
personal love and care for
them, and His desire and
ability to save them....is what
enables anyone to become
saved.
So yes, the "being saved"
process works only for those
who believe in Jesus Christ
and Him only, and place their
faith in Him and in His work
done on the Cross.
..and if so , then how does
believing save a person?
Believing saves a person because of
what it allows God to do in the Heart
and Soul of that person.
But it is not simply the fact of a
"belief". The issue is not having
“belief” but rather what we have a
belief about.
IF a person believes in Salvation by
Faith Alone in Jesus Christ (ask us
by email if this is not clear), then
That belief saves them. Why ?
because they are magical ?
No, because of the sovereignty of
God, because of what God does to
them, when they ask him into their
heart & life. When a person decides
to place their faith in Jesus Christ
and ask Him to forgive them of
their sins and invite Jesus Christ
into their life & heart, this is what
saves them — because of what God
does for them at that moment in
time.
At that moment in time when they
sincerely believe and ask God to
save them (as described above),
God takes the life of that person,
and in accordance with the will of
that human, having requested God
to save them from their sins through
Jesus Christ -- God takes that
person’s life and sins [all sins past,
present and future], and allocates
them to the category: of "one of
those people who Accepted the Free
Gift of Eternal Salvation that God
offers".
From that point forward, their sins
are no longer counted against them,
because that is an account that is
paid by the shed blood of Jesus
Christ. And there is no person that
could ever sin so much, that God’s
love would not be good enough for
them, or that would somehow not be
able to be covered by the penalty of
death that Jesus Christ paid the
price for. (otherwise, sin would be
more powerful than Jesus Christ --
which is not true).
Sometimes, People have trouble
believing in Jesus Christ because of
two extremes:
First the extreme that they are not
sinners (usually, this means that a
person has not committed a "serious"
sin, such as "murder", but God says that
all sins separates us from God, even
supposedly-small sins. We -- as humans
— tend to evaluate sin into more serious
and less serious categories, because we
do not understand just how serious
"small" sin is).
Since we are all sinners, we all have
a need for God, in order to have
eternal salvation.
Second the extreme that they are
not good enough for Jesus Christ to
save them. This is basically done by
those who reject the Free offer of
Salvation by Christ Jesus because
those people are -literally — unwilling
to believe. After death, they will
believe, but they can only chose
Eternal Life BEFORE they die.
The fact is that all of us, are not
good enough for Jesus Christ to
save them. That is why Paul wrote in
the Bible "For all have sinned, and
come short of the glory of God"
(Romans 3:23).
Thankfully, that is not the end of the
story, because he also wrote " For the
wages of sin is death; but the gift of God
is eternal life through Jesus Christ our
Lord."(Romans 6: 23)
That Free offer of salvation is
clarified in the following passage:
John 3: 16 For God so loved the
world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the
world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be
saved.
Prayers that count
The prayers that God hears
We don't make the rules any more
than you do. We just want to help
others know how to reach God, and
know that God cares about them
personally.
The only prayers that make it to
Heaven where God dwells are those
prayers that are prayed directly to
Him "through Jesus Christ" or "in
the name of Jesus Christ".
God hears our prayers because we
obey the method that God has
established for us to be able to
reach him. If we want Him to hear
us, then we must use the methods
that He has given us to
communicate with Him.
And he explains - in the New
Testament - what that method is:
talking to God (praying) in
accordance with God’s will - and
coming to Him in the name of Jesus
Christ. Here are some examples of
that from the New Testament:
(Acts 3:6) Then Peter said, Silver and
gold have I none; but such as I have give
I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth rise up and walk.
(Acts 16:18) And this did she many days.
But Paul, being grieved, turned and said
to the spirit, I command thee in the
name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.
And he came out the same hour.
(Acts 9:27) But Barnabas took him, and
brought him to the apostles, and
declared unto them how he had seen the
Lord in the way, and that he had spoken
to him, and how he had preached boldly
at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
(2 Cor 3:4) And such trust have we
through Christ to God-ward: (i.e.
toward God)
(Gal 4:7) Wherefore thou art no more a
servant, but a son; and if a son, then an
heir of God through Christ.
(Eph 2:7) That in the ages to come he
might show the exceeding [spiritual]
riches of his grace in his kindness toward
us through Christ Jesus.
(Phil 4:7) And the peace of God, which
passeth all understanding, shall keep
your hearts and minds through Christ
Jesus.
(Acts 4:2) Being grieved that they taught
the people, and preached through Jesus
the resurrection from the dead.
(Rom 1:8) First, I thank my God
through Jesus Christ for you all, that
your faith is spoken of throughout the
whole world.
(Rom 6:11) Likewise reckon ye also
yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ
our Lord.
(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death;
but the gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Rom 15:17) [have therefore whereof I
may glory through Jesus Christ in those
things which pertain to God.
(Rom 16:27) To God only wise, be glory
through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
(1 Pet 4:11) ...if any man minister, Jet
him do it as of the ability which God
giveth: that God in all things may be
glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom
be praise and dominion for ever and
ever. Amen.
(Gal 3:14) That the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles through
Jesus Christ; that we might receive the
promise of the [Holy] Spirit through
faith.
(Titus 3:6) Which he shed on us
abundantly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour;
(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every
good work to do his will, working in you
that which is wellpleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory
for ever and ever. Amen.
Anyone who has questions is encouraged to contact us by
email, with the address that is posted on our website.
Note for Foreign Language and
International Readers & Users
Foreign Language Versions of the
Introduction and Postcript/Afterword
will be included (hopefully) in future
editions.
IF a person wanted to become a Christian, what would they pray ?
God, I am praying this to you so that you will help me. Please help
me to want to know you better. Please help me to become a Christian.
God I admit that I am not perfect. I understand that you cannot allow
anyone into Heaven who is not perfect and Holy. I understand that
if I believe in Jesus Christ and in what He did, that God you will
see my life through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and that this will
allow me to have eternal life and know that I am going to Heaven.
God, I admit that I have sin and things in my life that are not perfect.
I know I have sinned in my life. Please forgive me of my sins.
1 believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He came to Earth
to save those who ask Him, and that He died to pay the penalty for
all of my sins.
I understand that Jesus physically died and physically arose from the
dead, and that God can forgive me because of the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. I thank you for dying for me, and for
paying the price for my sins. I accept to believe in you, and I thank
Prayers for help to God
In MANY LANGUAGES
For YOU, for US, for your Family
Dear God,
Thank you that this New Testament has been released so
that we are able to learn more about you.
Please help the people responsible for making this
Electronic book available. Please help them to be able to
work fast, and make more Electronic books available
Please help them to have all the resources, the money, the
strength and the time that they need in order to be able to
keep working for You.
Please help those that are part of the team that help them on
an everyday basis. Please give them the strength to continue
and give each of them the spiritual understanding for the
work that you want them to do. Please help each of them to
not have fear and to remember that you are the God who
answers prayer and who is in charge of everything.
I pray that you would encourage them,
and that you protect them, and the work & ministry that they
are engaged in. I pray that you would protect them from
the Spiritual Forces or other obstacles that could harm them
or slow them down.
Please help me when I use this New Testament to also think
of the people who have made this edition available, so that I
can pray for them and so they can continue to help more
people
I pray that you would give me a love of your
Holy Word (the New Testament), and that you would give
me spiritual wisdom and discernment to know you better
and to understand the period of time that we are living in.
Please help me to know how to deal with the difficulties that
I am confronted with every day. Lord God, Help me to want
to know you Better and to want to help other Christians in
my area and around the world.
I pray that you would give the Electronic book team and
those who work on the website and those who help them
your wisdom.
I pray that you would help the individual members of their
family (and my family) to not be spiritually deceived, but
to understand you and to want to accept and follow you in
every way. and I ask you to do these things
in the name of Jesus,
Amen,
KEE KEE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ Χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ KEE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χὰ ἃ Χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
5 minutos a ayudar excepto otros - diferencie eterno
Dios querido,
gracias que se ha lanzado este nuevo testamento
de modo que poder aprender mas sobre usted.
Ayude por favor a la gente responsable de hacer este Ebook disponible.
Ayudele por favor a poder trabajar rapidamente, y haga que
mas Ebooks disponible por favor le ayuda a tener todos los recursos,
los fondos, la fuerza y el tiempo que necesitan
para poder guardar el trabajar para usted.
Ayude por favor a los que sean parte del equipo que
les ayuda sobre una base diaria. Por favor déles la fuerza para continuar
y para dar a cada uno de ellos la comprensi6n espiritual para el trabajo
que usted quisiera que hicieran. Ayude por favor a cada uno de
ellos a no tener miedo y a no recordar que usted es el dios que contesta
a rezo y que esta a cargo de todo.
Ruego que usted los animara, y que usted los proteja,
y el trabajo y el ministerio que estan contratados adentro.
Ruego que usted los protegiera contra las fuerzas espirituales
que podrian dafarlas o retardarlas abajo. Ayudeme por favor cuando
utilizo este nuevo testamento también para pensar en ellas de modo
que pueda rogar para ellas y asi que pueden continuar ayudando a mas
gente Ruego que usted me diera un amor de su palabra santa,
y que usted me daria la sabiduria y el discernimiento espirituales
para conocerle mejor y para entender los tiempos que estamos
adentro y cémo ocuparse de las dificultades que me enfrentan con cada dia.
Sefor God, me ayuda a desear conocerle mejor y desear ayudar
a otros cristianos en mi area y alrededor del mundo. Ruego que usted
diera el Web site y los de Ebook el equipo y los que trabajan en
que les ayudan su sabiduria. Ruego que usted ayudara a los miembros
individuales de su familia (y de mi familia) espiritual a no ser engafhado,
pero entenderle y desear aceptarle y seguir de cada manera.
y pido que usted haga estas cosas en el nombre de Jesus, amen, ¢
(por qué lo hacemos tradujeron esto a muchas idiomas?
Porque necesitamos a tanto rezo como sea posible,
y atanta gente que ruega para nosotros y el este ministerio
tan a menudo como sea posible. Gracias por su ayuda.
El rezo es una de las mejores maneras que usted puede ayudarnos mas).
Hungarian
Hungary, Hungarian, Hungary Hungarian Maygar Prayer | ezus Krisztus
Imadsag hoz Isten Hogyan viselkedni Imadkozik hoz tud hall az en m
viselkedni kerdez ad segit szamomra
Hungarian - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God
- explained in Hungarian Language
Beszél6 -hoz Isten , a Alkot6 -b6l Vilagegyetem , a Lord :
1. amit 6n akar ad sz4momra a batorsag -hoz imadkozik a
dolog amit Vennem kell imadkozik
2. amit 6n akar ad sz4momra a batorsag -hoz hisz 6n és
elfogad amit akrsz igy csinalni életemmel , helyett én
felemel az én -m sajat akarat ( szandék ) fenti 6né.
3. amit 6n akar add nekem segit -hoz nem enged az én -m
fél -b6l ismeretlen -hoz valik a kifogas , vagy a alap értem
nem -hoz szolgal you.
4. amit 6n akar add nekem segit -hoz lat és -hoz megtanul
hogyan viselkedni volna a szellemi eré Sziikségem van (
Atmen6 -a sz6 a Biblia ) egy ) részére a esemény eldére és Ὁ
betii ) részére az én -m sajat személyes szellemi utazas.
5. Amit 6n Isten akar add nekem segit -hoz akar -hoz szolgal
On tébb
6. Amit 6n akar emlékeztet én -hoz -val beszél 6n
prayerwhen ) En csaldédott vagy -ban nehézség , helyett
kiprobalas -hoz hatarozat dolog én magam egyetlen atmendé
az én -m emberi er6.
7. Amit 6n akar add nekem Bodlcsesség és egy sziv téltott -
val Bibliai Bolcsesség azért EN akar szolgal 6n (δ Ὁ
hatékonyan.
8. Amit 6n akar adjon nekem egy -t vagy -hoz dolgoz6szoba
-a 5Ζό, a Biblia ,( a Uj Végrendelet Evangélium -b6l Budi ),
-ra egy személyes alap
9, amit én akar ad segitség szdmomra azért En képes -hoz
észrevesz dolog -ban Biblia ( -a sz6 ) melyik EN tud
személyesen elmond -hoz , és amit akarat segitsen nekem ért
amit akrsz én -hoz csinal életemben.
10. Amit 6n akar add nekem nagy itéléképesség , -hoz ért
hogyan viselkedni megmagyaraz -hoz masikak ki 6n , és
amit EN akar képesnek lenni megtenni megtanul hogyan
viselkedni megtanul és tud hogyan viselkedni kiall mellett
On és én -a sz6 (a Biblia )
11. Amit 6n akar hoz emberek ( vagy websites ) életemben
ki akar -hoz tud δη és én, ki van eréds -ban -uk pontos
megértés -bdl 6n ( Isten ); és Amit 6n akar hoz emberek (
vagy websites ) életemben ki lesz képes -hoz batorit én -hoz
pontosan megtanul hogyan viselkedni feloszt a Biblia a sz6 -
bdl igazsag (2 Komécsin 215:).
12. Amit 6n akar segitsen nekem -hoz megtanul -hoz volna
nagy megértés koriilbeliil melyik Biblia valtozat van legjobb
, melyik van a leg--bb pontos , és melyik birtokol a leg--bb
szellemi eré & eré , és melyik valtozat egyeztet -val a
eredeti kézirat amit ὅπ ihletett a fréi hivatds -bél Uj
Végrendelet -hoz ir.
13. Amit 6n akar ad segit sz4momra -hoz hasznal id6m -ban
egy jo Ut , és nem -hoz elpusztit idém -ra Hamis vagy tires
méddszer kézelebb keriilni -hoz Isten ( de amit van nem
htiségesen Bibliai ), és hol azok médszer termel nem hosszt
ideje vagy tartds szellemi gyiimdlcs.
14. Amit 6n akar ad segitség szamomra -hoz ért mit tenni
keres -ban egy templom vagy egy istentisztelet helye , mi
fajta -bdl kérdés -hoz kérdez , és amit 6n akar segitsen
nekem -hoz talal hiv6k vagy egy lelkész -val nagy szellemi
bélcsesség helyett Κὄπηγί vagy hamis valaszol.
15. amit 6n akar okoz én -hoz emlékszik -hoz memorizél -a
sz6 a Biblia ( mint Rémaiak 8), azért EN tud volna ez
szivemben és volna az én -m tér6édik el6készitett , és lenni
kész ad egy valaszol -hoz masikak - 6] remél amit Nekem
van kGriilbeliil Gn.
16. Amit 6n akar hoz segit szamomra azért az én -m sajat
teoldgia és tételek -hoz egyetérteni -a sz6 , a Biblia és amit
on akar folytatédik segiteni neki én tud hogyan az én -m
megértés -b6l doktrina lehet kézmtivesitett azért az én -m
sajat élet , életmdd és megértés folytatédik -hoz lenni Ζάτό -
hoz amit akrsz ez -hoz lenni értem.
17. Amit 6n akar nyit az én -m szellemi bepillantas (
k6vetkeztetés ) tobb és tébb , és amit hol az én -m megértés
vagy észrevétel -bdl 6n van nem pontos , amit 6n akar
segitsen nekem -hoz megtanul ki Jézus Krisztus htiségesen
van.
18. Amit 6n akar ad segit sz4momra azért EN akar képesnek
lenni megtenni szétvalaszt akaérmi hamis ritusok melyik
Nekem van fiiggés -ra , -bdl -a tiszta tanitas -ban Biblia , ha
ak4érmi mibél En alabbiak van nem -bél Isten , vagy van
ellenkez6 -hoz amit akrsz -hoz tanit minket kGriilbeliil
alabbiak on.
19. Amit akarmi kényszerit -b6l rossz akar nem eltesz
akarmi szellemi megértés melyik Nekem van , de eléggé
amit EN akar megtart a tudds -b6l hogyan viselkedni tud 6n
és én nem -hoz lenni tévedésben lenni ezekben a napokban -
bdl szellemi csalas.
20. Amit 6n akar hoz szellemi εγό és segit szA4momra azért
EN akarat nem -hoz lenni része a Nagy Esés El vagy -bél
akarmi mozgalom melyik akar lenni lelkileg utanzott -hoz
on és én -hoz -a Szent 5Ζό
21. Amit ha van akaérmi amit Nekem van megtett életemben
, vagy barmilyen médon amit Nekem van nem alperes -hoz
on ahogy ettem kellet volna volna és ez minden
megakadalyozas én -bdl egyik gyaloglas veled , vagy
birtoklas megértés , amit 6n akar hoz azok dolog / valasz /
esemény vissza bele az én -m térédik , azért EN akar
lemond 6ket nevében Jézus Krisztus , és mind az Osszes -uk
hat és kévetkezmény , és amit 6n akar helyettesit akarmi
iiresség ,sadness vagy kétségbeesés életemben -val a Orém -
bol Lord , és amit EN akar lenni tébb fokuszdlva tanulas -
hoz kévet 6n mellett olvas6 -a sz6 , a Biblia
22. Amit én akar nyit az én -m szemek azért EN akar
képesnek lenni megtenni vilagosan 1at és felismer ha van
egy Nagy Csalas koriilbeliil Szellemi téma , hogyan
viselkedni ért ez jelenség ( vagy ezek esemény ) -bdl egy
Bibliai perspektiva , és amit 6n akar add nekem bdlcsesség -
hoz tud és igy amit EN akarat megtanul hogyan viselkedni
segit barataim és szeretett egyek ( rokon ) nem lenni része it.
23. Amit 6n akar biztosit amit egyszer az én -m szemek van
kinyitott és az én -m torédik ért a szellemi jelentéség -bdl
id6szerti esemény bevétel hely a vilagon , amit 6n akar
elékészit szivem elfogadtatni magam -a igazsag , és amit 6n
akar segitsen nekem ért hogyan viselkedni talal batorsag és
er6 atmené -a Szent $z6 , a Biblia. Nevében Jézus Krisztus ,
En kérdezek mindezekért igazol kivans4gom -hoz lenni -ban
megillapodas -a akarat , és En kérdezés részére -a
bilcsesség és kocsit bérelni szerelem -b6l Igazs4g Amen
Tobb alul -bdl Oldal
Hogyan viselkedni volna Ordkélet
Vagyunk boldog ha ez oldalra 46] ( -b6l imadsag kereslet -
hoz Isten ) van képes -hoz tamogat 6n. Mi ért ez majus nem
lenni a legjobb vagy a leg--bb hatasos forditas. Mi ért amit
vannak sok kiilénb6z6 ways -b6l kifejezheté gondolkodas és
szoveg. Ha 6nnek van egy javaslat részére egy jobb forditas
, vagy ha tetszene neked -hoz fog egy kicsi Gsszeg -b6l idéd
-hoz kiild javaslatok hozzank , lesz lenni ételadag ezer -bdl
mas emberek is , ki akarat akkor olvas a k6zmiivesitett
forditds. Mi gyakran volna egy Uj Végrendelet elérheté -ban
-a nyelv vagy -ban nyelvek amit van ritka vagy régi. Ha 6n
latsz6 részére egy Uj Végrendelet -ban egy kiilénleges nyely
, legyen szives ir hozzank. Is , akarunk hogy biztosak
legyiink és megprébal -hoz kommunikal amit néha ,
megtessziik felajanl k6nyv amit van nem Szabad és amit
csinal ar pénz. De ha 6n nem tud ad néhanyuk elektronikus
kényv , mi tud gyakran csinal egy cserél -bdl elektronikus
kényv részére segit -val forditas vagy forditas dolgozik.
Csinalsz nem kell lenni profi munkas , csak kevés szabalyos
személy akit érdekel ételadag. Onnek kellene volna egy
szamit6gép vagy onnek kellene volna belépés -hoz egy
szamitégép -on -a helyi konyvtar vagy kollégium vagy
egyetem , 6ta azok altalaban volna jobb kapcsolatok -hoz
Internet.
Tudod is altalaban alapit -a sajat személyes SZABAD
elektronikus posta szamla mellett haladé mail.yahoo.com
Legyen szives fog egy pillanat -hoz talal a elektronikus
posta cim elhelyezett alul vagy a vég ebbdl oldal. Mi remél
lesz kiild elektronikus posta hozzank , ha ez -bdl segit vagy
batoritas. Mi is batorit Gn -hoz kapcsolat minket
vonatkozolag Elektronikus Ko6nyv hogy tudunk felajanl amit
van nélkiil ar , és szabad.
Megtessziik volna sok kényv -ban kiilf6ldi nyelvek , de
megtessziik nem mindig hely 6ket -hoz kap elektronikusan (
letdlt ) mert mi egyetlen csinal elérheté a kényv vagy a téma
amit van a leg--bb kereslet. Mi batorit 6n -hoz folytatédik -
hoz imadkozik -hoz Isten és -hoz folytatédik -hoz megtanul
r6la mellett olvas6é a Uj Végrendelet. Mi szivesen lat -a
kérdés és magyarazat mellett elektronikus posta.
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EE ἃ ἃ Χ ὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Italian
Italian- Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God -
explained in Italian Language
italian prayer jesus Cristo Preghiera come pregare al del dio il dio puo
sentirsi preghiera come chiedere dio di dare allaiuto me
Parlando al dio, il creatore dell'universo, il signore:
1. che dareste me al coraggio pregare le cose di che ho
bisogno per pregare
2. che dareste me al coraggio crederli ed accettare che cosa
desiderate fare con la mia vita, anziché me che exalting il
miei propri volonta (intenzione) sopra il vostro.
3. che mi dareste l'aiuto per non lasciare i miei timori dello
sconosciuto transformarsi in nelle giustificazioni, o la base
per me per non servirlo.
4. che mi dareste I'aiuto per vedere ed imparare come avere
la resistenza spiritosa io abbia bisogno (con la vostra parola
bibbia) di a) per gli eventi avanti e b) per il mio proprio
viaggio spiritoso personale.
5. Che dio mi dareste I'aiuto per desiderare servirli di pit
6. Che mi ricordereste comunicare con voi (prayer)when io
sono frustrati o in difficolta, invece di provare a risolvere le
cose io stesso soltanto con la mia resistenza umana.
7. Che mi dareste la saggezza e un cuore si ὃ riempito di
saggezza biblica in modo che li servissi pit: efficacemente.
8. Che mi dareste un desiderio studiare la vostra parola, la
bibbia, (il nuovo gospel del Testamento di John), a titolo
personale,
9. che dareste ad assistenza me in modo che possa notare le
cose nella bibbia (la vostra parola) a cui posso riferire
personalmente ed a che lo aiutera a capire che cosa lo
desiderate fare nella mia vita.
10. Che mi dareste il discernment grande, per capire come
spiegare ad altri che siate e che potrei imparare come
imparare e sapere levarsi in piedi in su per voi e la vostra
parola (bibbia)
11. Che portereste la gente (0 i Web site) nella mia vita che
desidera conoscerla e che ἃ forte nella loro comprensione
esatta di voi (dio); e quello portereste la gente (0 i Web site)
nella mia vita che potra consigliarmi imparare esattamente
come dividere la bibbia la parola della verita (2 coda di todo
2:15).
12. Che lo aiutereste ad imparare avere comprensione
grande circa quale versione della bibbia ἃ la cosa migliore,
che é la pit esatta e che ha la resistenza & I'alimentazione
pil spiritose e che la versione accosente con i manoscritti
originali che avete ispirato gli autori di nuovo Testamento
scrivere.
13. Che dareste I'aiuto me per usare il mio tempo in un buon
senso e per non sprecare il mio tempo sui metodi falsi o
vuoti di ottenere pit vicino al dio (maa quello non sia
allineare biblico) e dove quei metodi non producono frutta
spiritosa di lunga durata o durevole.
14. Che dareste l'assistenza me capire che cosa cercare in
una chiesa o in un posto di culto, che generi di domande da
chiedere e che lo aiutereste a trovare i believers 0 un pastor
con saggezza spiritosa grande anziché le risposte facili o
false.
15. di che lo indurreste a ricordarsi per memorizzare la
vostra parola la bibbia (quale Romans 8), di modo che posso
averlo nel mio cuore e fare la mia prepararsi mente ed ὃ
aspetti per dare una risposta ad altre della speranza che ho
circa Vol.
16. Che portereste l'aiuto me in modo che la mie proprie
teologia e dottrine per accosentire con la vostra parola, la
bibbia e che continuereste a aiutarli a sapere la mia
comprensione della dottrina pu6d essere migliorata in modo
che la miei propri vita, lifestyle e capire continui ad essere
piu vicino a che cosa lo desiderate essere per me.
17. Che aprireste la mia comprensione spiritosa
(conclusioni) di pit' e pit. e che dove la mia comprensione o
percezione di voi non ὃ esatta, che lo aiutereste ad imparare
chi Jesus Christ allineare é.
18. Che dareste l'aiuto me in modo che possa separare tutti i
rituali falsi da cui ho dipeso, dai vostri insegnamenti liberi
nella bibbia, se c'é ne di che cosa sono seguente non é del
dio, o ὃ contrari a che cosa desiderate per insegnarli - circa
quanto segue.
19. Che alcune forze della malvagita non toglierebbero la
comprensione affatto spiritosa che abbia, ma piuttosto che
mantennrei la conoscenza di come conoscerli e non essere
ingannato dentro attualmente di inganno spiritoso.
20. Che portereste la resistenza spiritosa ed aiutereste a me
in modo che non faccia parte del ritirarsi grande o di alcun
movimento che sarebbe spiritual falsificato a voi ed alla
vostra parola santa.
21. Quello se ci ὃ qualche cosa che faccia nella mia vita, o
qualsiasi senso che non ho risposto a voi come dovrei avere
e quello sta impedendomi di camminare con voi, 0 avere
capire, che portereste quei things/responses/events
nuovamente dentro la mia mente, di modo che rinuncerei
loro in nome di Jesus Christ e tutte i loro effetti e
conseguenze e che sostituireste tutta la emptiness, tristezza o
disperazione nella mia vita con la gioia del signore e che di
pit sarei messo a fuoco sull'imparare seguirli leggendo la
vostra parola, bibbia.
22. Che aprireste i miei occhi in modo che possa vedere e
riconoscere chiaramente se ci ἃ un inganno grande circa i
soggetti spiritosi, come capire questo fenomeno (0 questi
eventi) da una prospettiva biblica e che mi dareste la
saggezza per sapere ed in modo che impari come aiutare i
miei amici ed amavo ones (parenti) per non fare parte di
eSso.
23. Che vi accertereste che i miei occhi siano aperti una
volta e la mia mente capisce I'importanza spiritosa degli
eventi correnti che avvengono nel mondo, che abbiate
preparato il mio cuore per accettare la vostra verita e che lo
aiutereste a capire come trovare il coraggio e la resistenza
con la vostra parola santa, la bibbia. In nome di Jesus Christ,
chiedo queste cose che confermano il mio desiderio essere
nell'accordo la vostra volonta e sto chiedendo la vostra
saggezza ed avere un amore della verita, Amen.
Pit: in calce alla pagina
come avere vita Eterna
Siamo felici se questa lista (delle richieste di preghiera al
dio) puo aiutarli. Capiamo che questa non puo essere la
traduzione migliore o pit efficace. Capiamo che ci sono
molti sensi differenti di esprimere i pensieri e le parole. Se
avete un suggerimento per una traduzione migliore, 0 se
voleste occorrere una piccola quantita di vostro tempo di
trasmettere 1 suggerimenti noi, aiuterete i migliaia della
gente inoltre, che allora leggera la traduzione migliorata.
Abbiamo spesso un nuovo Testamento disponibile in vostra
lingua o nelle lingue che sono rare o vecchie.
Se state cercando un nuovo Testamento in una lingua
specifica, scriva prego noi. Inoltre, desideriamo essere sicuri
e proviamo a comunicare a volte quello, offriamo i libri che
non sono liberi e che costano i soldi. Ma se non potete
permettersi alcuni di quei libri elettronici, possiamo fare
spesso uno scambio di libri elettronici per aiuto con la
traduzione o il lavoro di traduzione.
Non dovete essere un operaio professionista, solo una
persona normale che ὃ interessata nell'assistenza. Dovreste
avere un calcolatore 0 dovreste avere accesso ad un
calcolatore alla vostra biblioteca o universita o universita
locale, poiché quelli hanno solitamente collegamenti
migliori al Internet. Potete anche stabilire solitamente il
vostro proprio cliente LIBERO personale della posta
elettronica andando al ### di mail.-yahoo.com prego
occorrete un momento per trovare l'indirizzo della posta
elettronica situato alla parte inferiore o all'estremita di
questa pagina. Speriamo che trasmettiate la posta elettronica
noi, se questa ὃ di aiuto o di incoraggiamento. [ΠΟ] ΓΘ vi
consigliamo metterseli in contatto con riguardo ai libri
elettronici che offriamo quello siamo senza costo e
che libero abbiamo molti libri nelle lingue straniere, ma
non le disponiamo sempre per ricevere elettronicamente
(trasferimento dal sistema centrale verso i satelliti) perché
rendiamo soltanto disponibile i libri o i soggetti che sono
chiesti. Vi consigliamo continuare a pregare al dio ed a
continuare ad imparare circa lui leggendo il nuovo
Testamento. Accogliamo favorevolmente le vostre domande
ed osservazioni da posta elettronica.
Preghiera al dio Caro Dio, Grazie che questo gospel o
questo nuovo Testamento é stato liberato in modo che
possiamo impararvi pit circa. Aiuti prego la gente
responsabile del rendere questo libro elettronico disponibile.
Conoscete che chi sono e potete aiutarle.
Aiutile prego a potere funzionare velocemente e renda i libri
pit elettronici disponibili Aiutili prego ad avere tutte le
risorse, i soldi, la resistenza ed il tempo di che hanno
bisogno per potere continuare a funzionare per voi.
Aiuti prego quelli che fanno parte della squadra che le aiuta
su una base giornaliere. Prego dia loro la resistenza per
continuare e dare ciascuno di loro la comprensione spiritosa
per il lavoro che li desiderate fare. Aiuti loro prego ciascuno
anon avere timore ed a non ricordarsi di che siete il dio che
risponde alla preghiera e che ἃ incaricato di tutto. Prego che
consigliereste loro e che li proteggete ed il lavoro & il
ministero che sono agganciati dentro.
Prego che li proteggereste dalle forze spiritose o da altri
ostacoli che potrebbero nuoc o ritardarli git. Aiutilo prego
quando uso questo nuovo Testamento anche per pensare alla
gente che ha reso questa edizione disponibile, di modo che
posso pregare per loro ed in modo da puo continuare a
aiutare pit gente.
Prego che mi dareste un amore della vostra parola santa (il
nuovo Testamento) e che mi dareste la saggezza ed il
discernment spiritosi per conoscerli meglio e per capire il
periodo di tempo ot stiamo vivendo. Aiutilo prego a sapere
risolvere le difficolta che sono confrontato con ogni giorno.
Il signore God, lo aiuta a desiderare conoscerli pitt meglio e
desiderare aiutare altri cristiani nella mia zona ed intorno al
mondo.
Prego che dareste la squadra elettronica e coloro del libro
che le aiuta la vostra saggezza.
Prego che aiutereste i diversi membri della loro famiglia (e
della mia famiglia) spiritual a non essere ingannati, ma
capirli e desiderare accettarli e seguire in ogni senso. Inoltre
diaci la comodita ed il consiglio in questi periodi ed io vi
chiedono di fare queste cose in nome di Jesus, amen,
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
PORTUGUESE PORTUGUESE
Portuguese Prayer Cristo Pedido a Deus Como orara Deus
podem ouvir my pedido perguntar Deus dar ajuda a me
Portuguese - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God
- explained in Portugues (Portugues) Language
Falando ao deus, o criador do universo, senhor:
1. que vocé daria a mim ἃ coragem pray as coisas que eu
necessito pray
2. que vocé daria a mim a coragem 0 acreditar e aceitar o
que vocé quer fazer com minha vida, em vez de mim que
exalting meus prdprios vontade (intengao) acima de seu.
3. que vocé me daria a ajuda para nao deixar meus medos do
desconhecido se transformar as desculpas, ou a base para
mim para nao lhe servir.
4. que vocé me daria a ajuda para ver e aprender como ter a
forca espiritual mim necessite (com sua palavra o bible) a)
para os eventos adiante e b) para minha propria viagem
espiritual pessoal.
5. Que vocé deus me daria a ajuda para querer lhe servir
mais
6. Que vocé me lembraria falar com vocé (prayer)when me
sao frustrados ou na dificuldade, em vez de tentar resolver
coisas eu mesmo somente com minha forga humana.
7. Que vocé me daria a sabedoria e um corac4o encheu-se
com a sabedoria biblical de modo que eu lhe servisse mais
eficazmente.
8. Que vocé me daria um desejo estudar sua palavra, o bible,
(0 gospel do testament novo de John), em uma base pessoal,
9. que vocé daria a auxilio a mim de modo que eu pudesse
observar coisas no bible (sua palavra) a que eu posso
pessoalmente se relacionar, e a que me ajudara compreender
0 que vocé me quer fazer em minha vida.
10. Que vocé me daria 0 discernment grande, para
compreender como explicar a outro que vocé é, e que eu
poderia aprender como aprender e saber estar acima para
vocé e sua palavra (o bible)
11. Que vocé traria os povos (ou os Web site) em minha
vida que querem o conhecer, e que sao fortes em sua
compreensao exata de vocé (deus); e isso vocé traria povos
(ou Web site) em minha vida que podera me incentivar
aprender exatamente como dividir o bible a palavra da
verdade (2 timothy 2:15).
12. Que vocé me ajudaria aprender ter a compreensao
grande sobre que versao do bible é a mais melhor, que βᾶο a
mais exata, e que tém a forca & o poder os mais espirituais,
Θ que a versdo concorda com os manuscritos originais que
vocé inspirou os autores do testament novo escrever.
13. Que vocé me daria a ajuda para usar meu tempo em uma
maneira boa, e para nao desperdicar minha hora em métodos
falsos ou vazios de comegar mais perto do deus (mas
daquele nao seja verdadeiramente biblical), e onde aqueles
métodos nao produzem nenhuma fruta espiritual a longo
prazo ou duravel.
14. Que vocé me daria 0 auxilio compreender o que
procurar em uma igreja ou em um lugar da adoragao, que
tipos das perguntas a pedir, e que vocé me ajudaria
encontrar believers ou um pastor com sabedoria espiritual
grande em vez das respostas faceis ou falsas. 15. que vocé
faria com que eu recordasse memorizar sua palavra o bible
(tal como Romans 8), de modo que eu pudesse o ter em meu
coracao 6 ter minha mente preparada, e estivessem pronto
para dar uma resposta a outra da esperanga que eu tenho
sobre vocé.
16. Que vocé me traria a ajuda de modo que meus préprios
theology e doutrinas para concordar com sua palavra, Ὁ
bible e que vocé continuaria a me ajudar saber minha
compreensao da doutrina pode ser melhorada de modo que
meus proprios vida, lifestyle e compreensao continuem a ser
mais perto de o que vocé a quer ser para mim.
17. Que vocé abriria minha introspec¢ao espiritual
(conclusGdes) mais e mais, e que onde minha compreensao
ou percepcao de vocé nao 580 exata, que vocé me ajudaria
aprender quem Jesus Christ é verdadeiramente.
18. Que vocé me daria a ajuda de modo que eu possa
separar todos os rituals falsos de que eu depender, de seus
ensinos desobstruidos no bible, se alguma de o que eu sou
seguinte nao sao do deus, nem 580 contrarias a 0 que vocé
quer nos ensinar - sobre o seguir.
19. Que nenhumas forgas do evil nao removeriam a
compreensao espiritual que eu tenho, mas rather que eu
reteria Ὁ conhecimento de como o conhecer e no ser iludido
nestes dias do deception espiritual.
20. Que vocé traria a forga espiritual e me ajudaria de modo
que eu nao seja parte da queda grande afastado ou de
nenhum movimento que fosse espiritual forjado a vocé e a
sua palavra holy.
21. Isso se houver qualquer coisa que eu fiz em minha vida,
ou alguma maneira que eu nao lhe respondi como eu devo
ter e aquela esta impedindo que eu ande com vocé, ou ter a
compreensao, que vocé traria aqueles
things/responses/events para tras em minha mente, de modo
que eu os renunciasse no nome de Jesus Christ, e em todas
seus efeitos e conseqiiéncias, e que vocé substituiria todo o
emptiness, sadness ou desespero em minha vida com a
alegria do senhor, e que eu estaria focalizado mais na
aprendizagem o seguir lendo sua palavra, o bible.
22. Que vocé abriria meus olhos de modo que eu possa ver e
reconhecer claramente se houver um deception grande sobre
tdpicos espirituais, como compreender este fendmeno (ou
estes eventos) de um perspective biblical, e que vocé me
daria a sabedoria para saber e de modo que eu aprenderei
como ajudar a meus amigos e amei (parentes) nao ser parte
dela.
23. Que vocé se asseguraria de que meus olhos estejam
abertos uma vez e minha mente compreende o significado
espiritual dos eventos atuais que ocorrem no mundo, que
vocé prepararia meu coracao para aceitar sua verdade, e que
vocé me ajudaria compreender como encontrar a coragem e
a forga com sua palavra holy, o bible. No nome de Jesus
Christ, eu pego estas coisas que confirmam meu desejo ser
no acordo sua vontade, e eu estou pedindo sua sabedoria e
para ter um amor da verdade, Amen.
Mais no fundo da pagina
como ter a vida eternal
Nos estamos contentes se esta lista (de pedidos do prayer ao
deus) puder lhe ajudar. Nés compreendemos que esta nao
pode ser a mais melhor ou tradugiio a mais eficaz. Nos
compreendemos que ha muitas maneiras diferentes de
expressar pensamentos e palavras. Se vocé tiver uma
sugestao para uma traduc¢a4o melhor, ou se vocé gostar de
fazer exame de um pouco de seu tempo nos emitir
sugestGes, vocé estara ajudando a milhares dos povos
também, que lero entao a traducao melhorada. Nés temos
frequentemente um testament novo disponivel em sua lingua
ou nas linguas que sao raras ou velhas. Se vocé estiver
procurando um testament novo em uma lingua especifica,
escreva-nos por favor.
Também, nds queremos ser certos e tentamos comunicar as
vezes isso, nds oferecemos os livros que nao estio livres e
que custam o dinheiro. Mas se νοοῖ nao puder ter recursos
para alguns daqueles livros eletr6nicos, nds podemos
frequentemente fazer uma troca de livros eletr6nicos para a
ajuda com tradugao ou trabalho da traducao. Vocé nao tem
que ser um trabalhador profissional, only uma pessoa
regular que esteja interessada na ajuda.
Vocé deve ter um computador ou vocé deve ter 0 acesso a
um computador em sua biblioteca ou faculdade ou
universidade local, desde que aqueles tém geralmente
conex6es melhores ao Internet.
Vocé pode também geralmente estabelecer seu prdprio
cliente LIVRE pessoal do correio eletr6énico indo ao ### de
mail.yahoo.com faz exame por favor de um momento para
encontrar o endereco do correio eletrénico ficado situado no
fundo ou na extremidade desta pagina. Nos esperamos que
vocé nos emita o correio eletr6nico, se este for da ajuda ou
do incentivo. Nés incentivamo-lo também contatar-nos a
respeito dos livros eletrénicos que nds oferecemos a isso
somos sem custo, 6
que livre nds temos muitos livros em linguas extrangeiras,
mas nos nao as colocamos sempre para receber
eletronicamente (download) porque nds fazemos somente
disponivel os livros ou os t6picos que sao os mais pedidos.
Nos incentivamo-lo continuar a pray ao deus e a continuar a
aprender sobre ele lendo ο testament novo. Nés damos boas-
vindas a seus perguntas e comentarios pelo correio
eletr6nico.
KK EEE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
δὰ ἃ ἀὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χ ὰ ἃ Χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Estimado Dios , Gracias aquel esto Nuevo Testamento has
estado disparador a fin de que nosotros estamos capaz a
aprender mas acerca de usted. Por favor aytideme la gente
responsable por haciendo esto Electrénica libro disponible.
Por favor ayideme estén capaz de obra ayuna , y hacer mas
Electronica libros mayor disponible Por favor ayideme
estén haber todo el recursos , el dinero , el potencia y el
tiempo aquel ellos necesidad para poder guardar laboral para
ti. Por favor ayudeme esos aquel esta parte de la equipo
aquel ayuda ellas en un corriente base.
Por favor dar ellas el potencia a continuar y dar cada de ellas
el espiritual comprensi6n por lo obra aquel usted necesidad
estén hacer. Por favor ayideme cada de estén no haber
miedo y a acordarse de aquel usted esta el Dios quién
respuestas oraci6n y quién es él encargado de todo.
Oro aquel usted haria animar ellas , y aquel usted amparar
ellas , y los trabajadores & ministerio aquel son ocupado en.
Oro aquel usted harfa amparar ellas desde el Espiritual
Fuerzas o otro obstaculos aquel puedes dafio ellas 0 lento
ellas down.
Por favor ayudeme cuando YO uso esto Nuevo Testamento
a también creer de la personas quién haber hecho esto
edicion disponible , a fin de que YO lata orar por ellas y asi
ellos lata continuar a ayuda mas personas Oro aquel usted
haria déme un amor de su Santo Palabra ( el Nuevo
Testamento ), y aquel usted haria déme espiritual juicio y
discernimientos saber usted mejor y a comprender el tiempo
aquel nosotros estamos viviente en.
Por favor aytideme saber cémo a tratar con el dificultades
aquel Estoy confrontar con todos los dias. Sefior Dios ,
Aytidame querer saber usted Mejor y querer a ayuda otro
Cristianos en mi area y alrededor del mundo. Oro aquel
usted haria dar el Electrénica libro equipo y esos quién obra
en la telas y esos quién ayuda ellas su juicio.
Oro aquel usted haria ayuda el individuo miembros de su
familia ( y mi familia ) a no estar espiritualmente engafiado ,
pero a comprender usted y querer a aceptar y seguir usted en
todos los dias camino. y YO preguntar usted hacer éstos
cosas en nombre de Jestis , Amén ,
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Kjere God , Takk skal du ha det denne Ny Testamentet
er blitt befridd i den grad at vi er dugelig ἃ hgre flere om du.
Behage hjelpe folket ansvarlig for gj#r denne Elektronisk
bestille anvendelig. Behage hjelpe seg ἃ bli kjgpedyktig
arbeide rask , og lage flere Elektronisk béker anvendelig
Behage hjelpe seg ἃ ha alle ressursene , pengene , det styrke
og klokken det de ngd for at vere i stand til oppbevare
arbeider til deres.
Behage hjelpe dem det er del av teamet det hjelpe seg opp
pa en hverdags basis. Behage gir seg det styrke a fortsette og
gir hver av seg det sprit forstaelse for det arbeide det du
gnske seg a gjgre.
Behage hjelpe hver av seg ἃ ikke ha rank og ἃ erindre det du
er det God hvem svar bgnn og hvem er i ledelsen av alt. JEG
be det du ville oppmuntre seg , og det du beskytte seg , og
det arbeide & ministerium det de er forlovet inne. JEG be
det du ville beskytte seg fra det Sprit Presser eller annet
obstacles det kunne skade seg eller langsom seg ned.
Behage hjelpe meg nar JEG bruk denne Ny Testamentet a
likeledes tenke pa folket hvem ha fremstilt denne opplag
anvendelig , i den grad at JEG kanne be for seg hvorfor de
kanne fortsette a hjelpe flere folk JEG be det du ville gir
meg en kjerlighet til din Hellig Ord ( det Ny Testamentet ),
og det du ville gir meg sprit klokskap og discernment a vite
du bedre og ἃ oppfatte perioden det vi lever inne.
Behage hjelpe meg ἃ vite hvor a beskjeftige seg med
problemene det JEG er stilt overfor hver dag. Lord God ,
Hjelpe meg a vil gjerne vite du Bedre og a vil gjerne hjelpe
annet Kristen inne meg omrade og i nerheten verden.
JEG be det du ville gir det Elektronisk bestille lag og dem
hvem arbeide med det website og dem hvem hjelpe seg din
klokskap. JEG be det du ville hjelpe individet medlemmer
av deres slekt (og meg slekt ) a ikke vere spiritually narret ,
bortsett fra ἃ oppfatte du og a vil gjerne godkjenne og falge
etter etter du inne enhver vei. og JEG anmode du ἃ gjgre
disse saker inne navnet av Jesus , Samarbeidsvillig ,
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὰ
SWEDISH -- SUEDE - SUEDOIS
Swedish - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God -
explained in Swedish Language
Swedish Prayer Bon till Gud Jesus Hur till Be Hur kanna
hora min Hur till fraga Gud till ger hjalp finna ande Ledning
Talande till Gud , skaparen om Universum , den Var Herre
och Fralsare :
1. sa pass du skulle ger till jag tapperheten till be sakerna sa
pass Jag néd till be
2. sa pass du skulle ger till jag tapperheten till tro pa du och
accept vad du vilja till gor med min liv , i stallet for jag
upphoja min aga vilja ( avsikt ) 6ver din.
3. sa pass du skulle ge mig hjalp till inte lata min radsla om
okand till bli den ursiikta , eller basisten for jag inte till tjana
you.
4. sa pass du skulle ge mig hjalp till se och till lara sig hur
till har den ande styrka Jag néd ( igenom din uttrycka bibeln
) en ) f6r handelsen fore och Ὁ ) for min aga personlig ande
resa.
5. Sa pass du Gud skulle ge mig hjalp till vilja till tjana Du
mer
6. Sa pass du skulle paminna jag till samtal med du
prayerwhen ) JAG er frustrerat eller i svarigheten , i stallet
for forsdkande till besluta sakerna mig sjalv bara igenom
min mansklig styrka.
7. Sa pass du skulle ge mig Visdom och en hjartan fyllt med
Biblisk Visdom sa fakta at JAG skulle tjana du mer
effektivt. 8. Sa pass du skulle ge mig en 6nska till studera
din uttrycka , bibeln , (den Ny Testamente Evangelium av
John ), pa en personlig basis 9. sa pass du skulle ger hjalp
till jag sa fakta at JAG er Κῦρε duktig miarka sakerna inne
om Bibel ( din uttrycka ) vilken JAG kanna personlig beraitta
till , och den dar vill hjalpa mig férsta vad du vilja jag till
gor i min liv.
10. Sa pass du skulle ge mig stor discernment , till forsta hur
till forklara till sjalvaste vem du er , och sa pass JAG skulle
kunde lara sig hur till lara sig och veta hur till l6pa upp for
du och mig din uttrycka ( bibeln )
11. Sa pass du skulle komma med folk ( eller websites ) i
min liv vem vilja till veta du och mig , vem de/vi/du/ni ar
stark i deras exakt forstandet av du ( Gud ); och Sa pass du
skulle komma med folk ( eller websites ) i min liv vem vilja
kunde uppmuntra jag till ackurat lara sig hur till fordela
bibeln orden av sanning Timothy 215:).
12. Sa pass du skulle hjalpa mig till lara sig till har stor
forstandet om vilken Bibel version ar bast , vilken ar mest
exakt , och vilken har mest ande styrka & formaga , och
vilken version samtycke med det original manuskripten sa
pass du inspirerat forfattarna om Ny Testamente till skriva.
13. Sa pass du skulle ger hjalp till jag till anvanda min tid i
en god vig , och inte till slosa min tid pa Falsk eller tom
metoderna till komma nérmare till Gud ( utom sa pass
blandar inte sant Biblisk ), och var den har metoderna
produkter ingen for lange siden tid eller varande ande frukt.
14. Sa pass du skulle ger hjalp till jag till forsta vad till blick
for i en kyrka eller en stalle av dyrkan , vad slagen av
sp6rsmalen till fraga , och sa pass du skulle hjalpa mig till
finna tro pa eller en pastor med stor ande visdom i stallet for
1att eller falsk svar.
15. sa pass du skulle orsak jag till minas till minnesmarke
din uttrycka bibeln ( sadan som Romersk 8), sa fakta at JAG
kanna har den i min hjartan och har min sinne beredd , och
vara rede till ἃ ger en svar till sjalvaste om hoppa pa att Jag
har omkring du.
16. Sa pass du skulle komma med hjalp till jag sa fakta at
min aga theology och doktrin till samtycke med din uttrycka
, bibeln och sa pass du skulle fortsatta till hjalpa mig veta
hur min forstandet av doktrin kanna bli forbattrat sa fakta at
min aga liv , livsform och forstandet fortsatt till vara ndjer
till vad slut du vilja den till vara for jag.
17. Sa pass du skulle 6ppen min ande inblicken (
sluttningarna ) mer och mer , och sa pass var min forstandet
eller uppfattningen av du 4r inte exakt , sa pass du skulle
hjalpa mig till lara sig vem Jesus Christ sant ar.
18. Sa pass du skulle ger hjalp till jag sa fakta at JAG skulle
kunde skild fran nagon falsk ritual vilken Jag har bero pa ,
fran din klar undervisning inne om Bibel , eventuell om vad
JAG foljer ar inte av Gud, eller ar i strid mot vad du vilja
till undervisa oss omkring f6ljande du.
19. Sa pass nagon pressar av onda skulle inte ta bort nagon
ande férstandet vilken Jag har , utom hellre sa pass JAG
skulle halla kvar kunskap om hur till veta du och mig inte
till bli lurat i den har dagen av ande bedrigeri.
20. Sa pass du skulle komma med ande styrka och hjalp till
jag sa fakta at Jag vill inte till bli del om den Stor Stjarnfall
Bort eller av nagon rérelse vilken skulle bli spiritually
forfalskad till du och mig till din Helig Uttrycka
21. Sa pass om dar er nagot sa pass Jag har gjort det min liv
, eller nagon vag sa pass Jag har inte reagerat till du sa JAG
skulle har och den dar er forhindrande jag fran endera
vandrande med du, eller har forstandet , sa pass du skulle
komma med den har sakerna / svaren / handelsen rygg in i
min sinne , sa fakta at JAG skulle avsaiga sig dem inne om
Namn av Jesus Christ , och all av deras verkningen och
konsekvenserna , och sa pass du skulle satta tillbaka nagon
tomhet ,sadness eller f6rtvivlan i min liv med det Gladje om
Var Herre och Friilsare , och sa pass JAG skulle bli mer
focusen pa inlarningen till f6lja du vid lasande din uttrycka ,
den Bibel
22. Sa pass du skulle 6ppen min 6ga sa fakta at JAG skulle
kunde klar se och recognize om dar er en Stor Bedrigeri
omkring Ande amnena , hur till f6rsta den har phenomenon
( eller de har handelsen ) fran en Biblisk perspektiv , och sa
pass du skulle ge mig visdom till veta och sa sa pass Jag vill
lara sig hur till hjalp min vannerna och dlskat en ( slaktingen
) inte bli del om it.
23. Sa pass du skulle tillf6rséikra sa pass en gang min 6ga
de/vi/du/ni ar Gppnat och min sinne férstar den ande mening
av str6m héandelsen tagande stille pa jorden , sa pass du
skulle f6rbereda min hjartan till accept din sanning , och sa
pass du skulle hjalpa mig forsta hur till finna mod och styrka
igenom din Helig Uttrycka , bibeln. Inne om namn av Jesus
Christ , JAG fraga om de hir sakerna bekraftande min G6nska
till vara i folje avtalen din vilja , och JAG fragar till deras
visdom och till har en karlek om den Sanning
Samarbetsvillig
Mer pa botten av Sida
Hur till har Oandlig Liv
Vi er glad om den har lista 6ver ( b6n anmoder till Gud ) ar
duglig till hjalpa du. Vi forsta den har Maj inte bli den bast
eller mest effektiv G6versattning. Vi forsta det dar de/vi/du/ni
ar manga olik vag av yttranden tanken och orden. Om du har
en férslagen fér en battre 6versattning , eller om du skulle
lik till ta en liten belopp av din tid till sanda forslag till oss ,
du vill bli hjalpande tusenden av annan folk ocksa , vem
vilja da lasa den forbittrat Oversattning. Vi ofta har en Ny
Testamente tillgéanglig i din sprak eller i spraken sa pass
de/vi/du/ni ar sallsynt eller gammal. Om du er sett for en Ny
Testamente i en bestamd sprak , behaga skriva till oss.
Ocksa , vi behév till vara siker och fors6k till meddela sa
pass ibland , vi g6r erbjudande bokna sa pass blandar inte
Fri och sa pass gor kostnad pengar. Utom om du kan icke
har rad med det nagot om den har elektronisk bokna , vi
kanna ofta gor en byta av elektronisk bokna for hjalp med
Oversattning eller Gversattning verk.
Du hade inte till vara en professionell arbetaren , enda et par
regelbunden person vem er han intresserad i hjalpande. Du
borde har en computern eller du borde ha ingang till en
computern pa din lokal bibliotek eller college eller
universitet , sedan dess den har vanligtvis har battre
férbindelserna till Internet. Du kanna ocksa vanligtvis
grunda din aga personlig FRI elektronisk sinda med posten
redovisa vid gar till mail.yahoo.com
### Behaga ta en stund till finna den elektronisk sinda med
posten adress lokaliserat nederst eller sluten av den har sida.
Vi hoppas du vill sanda elektronisk sanda med posten till
oss , om den har er av hjalp eller uppmuntran. Vi ocksa
uppmuntra du till komma i kontakt med oss angaande
Elektronisk Bokna sa pass vi erbjudande sa pass de/vi/du/ni
ar utan kostnad , och fri.
Vi gor har manga bokna i utlandsk spraken , utom vi inte
alltid stélle dem till ta emot elektronisk ( data 6verf6r )
emedan vi bara géra tillganglig bokna eller iémnena sa pass
de/vi/du/ni ar mest begéret. Vi uppmuntra du till fortsatta till
be till Gud och till fortsatta till lara sig omkring Honom vid
lasande den Ny Testamente. Vi valkomnande din
sporsmalen och kommentarerna vid elektronisk saénda med
posten.
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Anwylyd Celi , Ddiolch 'ch a hon 'n Grai
Destament gollyngwyd fel a allwn at ddysg hychwaneg
amdanat. Blesio chyfnertha 'r boblogi 'n atebol achos yn
gwneud hon Electronic Ilyfr ar gael.
Blesio chyfnertha 'u at all gweithia ymprydia , a gwna
hychwaneg Electronic llyfrau ar gael Blesio chyfnertha 'u at
ca pawb 'r adnoddau , 'r arian , 'r chryfder a 'r amsera a hwy
angen er all cadw yn gweithio atat. Blesio chyfnertha hynny
sy barthu chan 'r heigia a chyfnertha 'u acha an everyday
sail.
Blesio anrhega 'u 'r chryfder at arhosa a anrhega pob un
chanddyn 'r Ἢ ysbrydol yn deall achos 'r gweithia a 'ch
angen 'u at gwna.
Blesio chyfnertha pob un chanddyn at mo ca arswyda a at
atgofia a ach 'r Celi a atebiadau arawd a sy i mewn
chyhudda chan bopeth. Archa a anogech 'u , ἃ ἃ achlesi'u, a
'r gweithia & gweinidogaeth a Jn cyflogedig i mewn. Archa
a achlesech 'u chan 'r'n Ysbrydol Grymoedd ai arall
rhwystrau a could amhara 'u ai arafa 'u i lawr.
Blesio chyfnertha 'm pryd Arfera hon 'n Grai Destament at
hefyd dybied chan 'r boblogi a wedi gwneud hon argraffiad
ar gael , fel a Alla gweddio am 'u a fel allan arhosa at
chyfnertha hychwaneg boblogi Archa a anrhegech 'm
anwylaeth chan 'ch 'n gysegr-lan Eiria (ὙΠ Grai Destament
), a a anrhegech 'm 'n ysbrydol callineb a ddirnadaeth at
adnabod gwellhawch a at ddeall 'r atalnod chan amsera a ]m
yn bucheddu i mewn. Blesio chyfnertha 'm at adnabod fel at
ymdrin 'r afrwyddinebau a Dwi wynebedig ag ddiwedydd.
Arglwydd Celi , Chyfnertha 'm at angen at adnabod
gwellhawch a at angen at chyfnertha arall Cristnogion i
mewn 'm arwynebedd a am 'r byd. Archa a anrhegech 'r
Electronic llyfr heigia a hynny a gweithia acha 'r website a
hynny a chyfnertha 'u 'ch callineb. Archa a chyfnerthech 'r
hunigol aelodau chan 'n hwy deulu (a'm deulu ) at mo bod
Ἢ ysbrydol dwylledig , namyn at ddeall 'ch a at angen at
chymer a canlyn 'ch i mewn 'n bob ffordd. a Archa 'ch at
gwna hyn bethau i mewn 'r enwa chan Iesu , Amen ,
KEE ἀὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χὰ ἃ Χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Iceland — Icelandic
Iceland
Icelandic Icelandic - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking)
to God - explained in Icelandic Language
Prayer Isceland Icelandic Jesus Kristur Baen til Guo
Hvernig til Bioja Hvernig geta spyrja gefa hjalpa andlegur
Leiosogn
Tal til Gud the Skapari af the Alheimur the Herra :
1. bessi pu vildi gefa til mig the hugrekki til bidja the hlutur
pessi EG porf til bidja
2. bessi pu vildi gefa til mig the hugrekki til tra pti og
piggja hvada pu vilja til komast af med minn lif , ἴ stadinn af
mig upphefja minn eiga vilja ( 4setningur ) yfir pinn.
3. pessi pu vildi gefa mig hjalpa til ekki lata minn 6gurlegur
af the épekktur til verda the afs6kun , eda the undirstada
fyrir mig ekki til bera fram you. 4. bessi pu vildi gefa mig
hjalpa til sja og til lera hvernig til hafa the andlegur styrkur
EG pérf (i gegnum pinn ord the Biblia a ) fyrir the atburdur
4 undan ) og Ὁ ) fyrir minn eiga personulegur andlegur ferd.
5. Pessi pi Gud vildi gefa mig hjalpa til vilja til bera fram
bu fleiri 6. Pessi pu: vildi minna 4 mig til tala med pu
prayerwhen ) EG er svekktur eda i vandi , { stadinn af
erfidur til 4setningur hlutur ég sjalfur eini i gegnum minn
mannlegur styrkur.
7. Pessi pt vildi gefa mig Viska og a hjarta fiskflak med
Bibliulegur Viska svo pessi EG vildi bera fram pu fleiri 4
ahrifarikan hatt.
8. bessi pu vildi gefa mig a longun til nema pinn oro the
Biblia the Nyja testamentid Gudspjall af Kldsett ), 4a
personulegur undirstada
9. bessi pti vildi gefa adstod til mig svo pessi EG er feer til
taka eftir hlutur { the Biblia ( pinn ord ) hver EG geta
personulega segja fra til , og pessi vilja hjalpa mig skilja
hvada pu vilja mig til gera ut af vid minn lif.
10. Pessi pu vildi gefa mig mikill skarpskyggni , til skilja
hvernig til titskYra til annar hver pt ert , og pessi EG vildi
vera feer til lera hvernig til lara og vita hvernig til standa
med pt og pinn or6 the Biblia )
11. bessi pti vildi koma med félk ( eda websites ) 1 minn lif
hver vilja til vita bu, og hver ert sterkur { peirra nakveemur
skilningur af pu ( gud ); og Pessi pu vildi koma med fdlk (
eda websites ) f minn lif hver vilja vera fer til hvetja mig til
nakveemur lzra hvernig til deila the Biblia the ord guds
sannleikur (2 Hredslugjarn 215:).
12. Pessi pu vildi hjalpa mig til leera til hafa mikill
skilningur 60ur { hver Biblia utgafa er bestur , hver er
nakveemur , og hver hefur the andlegur styrkur & mattur , og
hver utgafa sampykkja med the frumeintak handrit bessi pu
blasa i brjdst the ritstorf af the Nyja testamentio til skrifa.
13. Pessi pu vildi gefa hjalpa til mig til nota minn timi i g6d
kaup vegur , og ekki til βόα minn timi 4 Falskur eda t6mur
adfero til fa loka til Gud (en pessi ert ekki hreinskilnislega
Bibliulegur ), og hvar bessir adferd Avextir og graeenmeti
neitun langur ord eda varanlegur andlegur avGxtur.
14. Pessi pu vildi gefa adstod til mig til skilja hvada til leita
δ {a kirkja eda a stadur af dyrkun , hvada gddur af
spurning til spyrja , og pessi pu vildi hjalpa mig til finna
trimadur eda a prestur med mikill andlegur viska ἴ stadinn
af pegilegur eda falskur svar.
15. pessi pt vildi ors6k mig til muna til leggja 4 minnid pinn
ord the Biblia ( svo sem eins og Latneskt letur 8), svo pessi
EG geta hafa pad f minn hjarta og hafa minn hugur tilbiinn ,
og vera tilbuinn til gefa 6akvedinn greinir f ensku svar til
annar af the von bessi EG hafa 6dur { pu.
16. Pessi pu vildi koma meo hjalpa til mig svo pessi minn
eiga gudfredi og kenning til vera ἴ samreemi vid pinn ord
the Biblia og pessi pu vildi halda afram til hjalpa mig vita
hvernig minn skilningur af kenning geta vera beta svo pessi
minn eiga lif lifestyle og skilningur halda afram til vera loka
til hvada pu vilja pao til vera fyrir mig.
17. Pessi pu vildi opinn minn andlegur innsyn ( endir ) fleiri
og fleiri , og bessi hvar minn skilningur eda skynjun af pu er
ekki nakveemur , bessi pti vildi hjalpa mig til lera hver Jestis
Kristur hreinskilnislega er.
18. Pessi pti vildi gefa hjalpa til mig svo bessi EG vildi vera
fer til adskilinn allir falskur helgisidir hver EG hafa
osjalfsteedi 4 , fra pinn bjartur kennsla i the Biblia, ef allir af
hvada EG er hépur studningsmanna er ekki af Gud , eda er
gegn hvada pu vilja til kenna okkur 6dur f hopur
studningsmanna pu.
19. Pessi allir herafli af vondur vildi ekki taka burt allir
andlegur skilningur hver EG hafa , en fremur pessi EG vildi
halda the vitneskja af hvernig til vita bu og ekki til vera
blekkja f bessir sem minnir 4 g6mlu dagana) af andlegur
blekking.
20. Pessi pu vildi koma med andlegur styrkur og hjalpa til
mig svo pessi EG vilja ekki til vera hluti af the Mikill Bylta
Burt eda af allir hreyfing hver vildi vera andlegur folsun til
pu og til pinn Heilagur Ord
21. Bessi ef there er nokkud pessi EG hafa biinn minn Iif 4
eda allir vegur pessi EG hafa ekki s4 sem svarar til pti eins
og EG 6x! hafa og pessi er sem koma mé ἴ veg fyrir eda
afstyra mig fra annar hvor gangandi med pu , eda having
skilningur , pessi pi vildi koma med pessir hlutur / svar /
atburdur bak inn { minn hugur , svo bessi EG vildi afneita ba
{ the Nafn af Jestis Kristur , og ekki minna en peirra ahrif og
afleiding , og pessi pti vildi skipta um allir tomleiki ,sadness
eda Orventing i minn lif med the Gledi af the Herra , og
pessi EG vildi vera fleiri brennidepill 4 lardémur til fylgja
pu vio lestur pinn ord the Biblia
22. Pessi bu vildi opinn minn augsyn svo pessi EG vildi vera
fer til greinilega sja og pekkjanlegur ef there er a Mikill
Blekking 66ur { Andlegur atridi , hvernig til skilja this q (
eda pessir atburdur ) fra a Bibliulegur yfirsyn , og pessi pu
vildi gefa mig viska til vita og svo pessi EG vilja lera
hvernig til hjalpa minn vinatta og Ast sjalfur ( zttingi ) ekki
vera hluti af it.
23. Pessi pu vildi tryggja bessi einu sinni minn augsyn ert
opnari og minn hugur skilja the andlegur merking af
straumur atburdur hrifandi stadur { the verdld , pessi pu vildi
undirbtéa minn hjarta til biggja binn sannleikur , og bessi pu
vildi hjalpa mig skilja hvernig til finna hugrekki og styrkur i
gegnum pinn Heilagur Ord the Biblia. [ the nafn af Jestis
Kristur , EG spyrja fyrir pessir hlutur stadfesta minn léngun
til vera { samkomulag pinn vilja , og EG er asking fyrir pinn
viska og til hafa a ast af the Sannleikur Mottzkilegur
Fleiri 4 the Botn af Bladsida
Hvernig til hafa Eilifur Lif
Vio ert gladur ef this listi ( af been beiOni til Gud ) er feer til
adstoda pu. Vid skilja this mega ekki vera the bestur eda
arangursrikur pyding. Vid skilja bessi there ert margir likur
lifnadarheettir af tjaning hugsun og ord. Ef pu hafa a
uppastunga fyrir a betri pyding , eda ef pt vildi eins og til
taka a litill magn af pinn timi til senda uppastunga til okkur ,
pu vilja vera skammtur pusund af annar félk einnig , hver
vilja pa lesa the beta pyding.
Vi0 oft hafa a Nyja testamentid laus i pinn tungumal eda f
tungumal pessi ert sjaldgeefur eda gamall. Ef pu ert utlit fyrir
a Nyja testamentio i a sérstakur tungumal , poknast skrifa til
okkur. Einnig , vid vilja til vera viss og reyna til midla pessi
stundum , vid gera tilbod bék pessi ert ekki Frjals og pessi
gera kostnadur peningar. En ef pu geta ekki hafa efni 4
sumir af bessir rafteeknilegur bék , vid geta oft gera
oakvedinn greinir { ensku skipti af rafteaknilegur b6k fyrir
hjalpa med pyding eda byding vinna. Pu gera ekki verda ad
vera a faglegur verkamaour , eini a venjulegur manneskja
hver er 4hugasamur ἴ skammtur. Pt 6x] hafa a tolva eda pu
ox] hafa adgangur til a télva 4 pinn heimamaour boékasafn
eda hask6li eda hask6li , sidan pessir venjulega hafa betri
tengsl til the. bu geta einnig venjulega stofnsetja pinn eiga
persOnulegur FRJALS raftaknilegur péstur reikningur vid
a0 fara til mail.yahoo.com
béknast taka a augnablik til finna the rafteeknilegur pdéstur
heimilisfang stadgreina 4 the botn eda the endir af this
bladsida. Vid von pu vilja senda rafteknilegur péstur til
okkur , ef this er af hjalpa eda hvatning. Vid einnig hvetja
pu til snerting okkur vidvikjandi Rafteknilegur Bok pessi
vid tilbod pessi ert an kostnadur , og frjals.
Vio gera hafa margir bok i erlendur tungumél , en vid gera
ekki alltaf stadur pa til taka 4 moti electronically ( seekja
skra af fjarlegri télvu ) pvi vid eini gera laus the bok eda the
atridi pessi ert the beidni. Vid hvetja pu til halda afram til
bidja til Gud og til halda afram til lara 6dur { Hann vid
lestur the Nyja testamentid. Vid velkominn pinn spurning og
athugasemd vid rafteknilegur postur.
KKK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Danish - Danemark
Danish - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God -
explained in Danish Language
Prayer Danish Dannish Denmark J esus Bon hen til God Hvor Bed
kunne hore mig Hvor opfordre indromme haelp hen mig
Taler hen til God , den Skaberen i den Alt , den Lord : 1. at
jer ville indrgmme hen til mig den mod hen til bed den sager
at JEG savn hen til bed
2. at jer ville indrgmme hen til mig den mod hen til tro jer
og optage hvad jer ville gerne lave hos mig liv , istedet for
mig ophgje mig besidde vil ( hensigt ) ovenfor jeres.
3. at jer ville indrgmme mig hjelp hen til ikke lade mig
skreek i den ubekendt hen til blive den bede om tilgivelse ,
eller den holdepunkt nemlig mig ikke hen til anrette you.
4. at jer ville indrgmme mig hjelp hen til se efter og hen til
lere hvor hen til nyde den appel krzefter JEG savn (
igennem jeres ord den Bibel ) en ) nemlig den begivenheder
foran og Ὁ ) nemlig mig besidde personlig appel rejse.
5. At jer God ville indrgémme mig hjelp hen til ville gerne
anrette Jer flere
6. At jer ville erindre mig hen til samtale hos jer prayerwhen
) Jeg er kuldkastet eller i problem , istedet for prover hen til
Igse sager selv bare igennem mig human kreefter.
7. At jer ville indrgmme mig Klogskab og en hjerte fyldte
hos Bibelsk Klogskab i den grad at JEG ville anrette jer
flere effektive.
8. At jer ville indrgmme mig en lyst hen til lese jeres ord ,
den Bibel , (den Ny Testamente Gospel i John ), oven pa en
personlig holdepunkt
9. at jer ville indrgmme hjelp hen til mig i den grad at Jeg er
kgbedygtig mzrke sager i den Bibel ( jeres ord ) hvilke JEG
kunne jeg for mit vedkommende henhgre til , og at vil hjzlp
mig opfatte hvad jer savn mig hen til lave i mig liv.
10. At jer ville indrg@mme mig stor discernment , hen til
opfatte hvor hen til forklare hen til andre hvem du er , og at
JEG ville vere i stand til lzere hvor hen til lare og kende
hvor hen til rage op nemlig jer og jeres ord ( den Bibel )
11. At jer ville overbringe folk ( eller websites ) i mig liv
hvem ville gerne kende jer , og hvem er kraftig i deres
ngjagtig opfattelse i jer God ); og At jer ville overbringe
folk ( eller websites ) i mig liv hvem vil vere i stand til give
mod mig hen til akkurat lzre hvor hen til skille den Bibel
den ord i sandhed Timothy 215:).
12. At jer ville hjzlp mig hen til lere hen til nyde stor
opfattelse hvorom Bibel gengivelse er bedst , hvilke er hgjst
ngjagtig , og hvilke har den hgjst appel Κι ον & kraft , og
hvilke gengivelse indvilliger hos den selvstendig
handskreven at jer inspireret den forfatteres i den Ny
Testamente hen til skriv.
13. At jer ville indrgmme hjelp hen til mig hen til hjelp mig
gang i en artig made , og ikke hen til affald mig gang oven
pa Falsk eller indholdsl¢s metoder hen til komme nzrmere
hen til God ( men at er ikke sandelig Bibelsk ), og der hvor
dem metoder opfore for ikke sa lenge siden periode eller
varer appel fruit.
14. At jer ville indrgmme hjelp hen til mig hen til opfatte
hvad hen til kigge efter i en kirke eller en opstille i
andagtsggende , hvad arter i spgrgsmal hen til opfordre , og
at jer ville hjzlp mig hen til hitte tro eller en sidst hos stor
appel klogskab istedet for nemme eller falsk svar.
15. at jer ville hidfgre mig hen til huske hen til lere udenad
jeres ord den Bibel ( sasom Romersk 8), i den grad at JEG
kunne nyde sig i mig hjerte og nyde mig indre forberedt , og
vere rede til at indrgmme en besvare hen til andre i den
habe pa at Jeg har omkring jer.
16. At jer ville overbringe hjzlp hen til mig i den grad at
mig besidde theology og doctrines hen til samtykke med
jeres ord , den Bibel og at jer ville fortsette hen til hjelp
mig kende hvor mig opfattelse i doctrine kan forbedret i den
grad at mig besidde liv lifestyle og opfattelse fortszetter at
blive ngjere hvortil jer savn sig at blive nemlig mig.
17. At jer ville lukke op mig appel indblik ( afslutninger )
flere og flere , og at der hvor mig opfattelse eller
opfattelsesevne i jer er ikke ngjagtig , at jer ville hjzlp mig
hen til lere hvem Jesus Christ sandelig er.
18. At jer ville indrgmme hjelp hen til mig i den grad at
JEG ville vere i stand til selvsteendig hvilken som helst
falsk rituals hvilke Jeg har afhznge oven pa , af jeres slette
lerer i den Bibel , eventuel hvoraf Jeg er nzeste er ikke i God
, eller er imod hvad jer ville gerne belere os omkring neste
jer.
19. At hvilken som helst tvinger i darlig ville ikke holde
bortrejst hvilken som helst appel opfattelse hvilke Jeg har ,
men nermest at JEG ville beholde den kundskab i hvor hen
til kende jer og ikke at blive narrede i i denne tid i appel
bedrag.
20. At jer ville overbringe appel krefter og hjzlp hen til mig
i den grad at Ja ikke at blive noget af den Stor Nedadgaende
Bortrejst eller i hvilken som helst beveegelse som kunne
vere spiritually counterfeit hen til jer og hen til jeres Hellig
Ord
21. At selv om der er alt at Jeg har skakmat mig liv , eller
hvilken som helst made at Jeg har ikke reageret hen til jer
nemlig JEG burde nyde og det vil sige afholder mig af enten
den ene eller den anden af omvandrende hos jer , eller har
opfattelse , at jer ville overbringe dem sager / svar /
begivenheder igen i mig indre , i den grad at JEG ville afsta
fra sig i den Benzevne i Jesus Christ , og al i deres effekter
og félger , og at jer ville skifte ud hvilken som helst tomhed
,sadness eller opgive habet i mig liv hos den Glede i den
Lord , og at JEG ville vere flere indstille oven pa indlzering
hen til komme efter jer af leesning jeres ord , den Bibel
22. At jer ville lukke op mig gjne i den grad at JEG ville
vere i stand til klart se efter og anerkende selv om der er en
Stor Bedrag omkring Appel emner , hvor hen til opfatte
indeveerende phenomenon ( eller disse begivenheder ) af en
Bibelsk perspektiv , og at jer ville indr@mme mig klogskab
hen til kende hvorfor at Ja leere hvor hen til hjzlp mig
bekendte og elske ones ( slegtninge ) ikke vere noget af it.
23. At jer ville sikre sig at nar forst mig gjne er anlagde og
mig indre forstar den appel vegt i indeveerende
begivenheder indtagelse opstille pa jorden , at jer ville legge
til rette mig hjerte hen til optage jeres sandhed , og at jer
ville hjzlp mig opfatte hvor hen til hitte mod og kreefter
igennem jeres Hellig Ord , den Bibel. I den benzvne i Jesus
Christ , JEG anmode om disse sager bekrzeftende mig lyst at
blive overensstemmende jeres vil , og Jeg er bede om
nemlig jeres klogskab og hen til nyde en keerlighed til den
Sandhed Amen
Flere forneden Side
Hvor hen til nyde Evig Liv
Vier glad selv om indeveerende liste over ( bn anmoder
hen til God ) er kan hen til hjzlpe jer. Vi opfatte
indeveerende ma ikke vere den bedst eller hgjst effektiv
gengivelse. Vi er klar over, at der er mange anderledes veje i
gengivelse indfald og ord. Selv om du har en henstilling
nemlig en bedre gengivelse , eller selv om jer ville gerne
hen til holde en ringe belgb i jeres gang hen til sende
antydninger hen til os , jer vil vere hjalp tusindvis i andre
ligeledes , hvem vil sa er der ikke mere lese den forbedret
gengivelse.
Vi ofte nyde en Ny Testamente anvendelig i jeres sprog eller
i sprogene at er sjzlden eller forhenverende. Selv om du er
ser ud nemlig en Ny Testamente i en specifik sprog , behage
henvende sig til os. Ligeledes , vi ville gerne vere sikker og
pr@ve hen til overfgrer at engang imellem , vi lave pristilbud
bgger at er ufri og at lave omkostninger penge. Men selv om
jer kan ikke afgive noget af dem elektronisk bgger , vi
kunne ofte lave en udveksle i elektronisk bgger nemlig
hjelp hos gengivelse eller gengivelse arbejde. Jer som ikke
har at blive en professional arbejder , kun fa sand
pageeldende hvem er interesseret i hjalp.
Jer burde nyde en computer eller jer burde have adgang til
en computer henne ved jeres lokal bibliotek eller kollegium
eller universitet , siden dem til hverdag nyde bedre
sleegtskaber hen til den indre. Jer kunne ligeledes til hverdag
indrette jeres besidde personlig OMKOSTNINGSFRIT
elektronisk indlevere beretning af igangvzrende hen til
mail.yahoo.com
Ht
Behage holde for et gjeblik siden hen til hitte den
elektronisk indlevere henvende placeret nederst eller den
enden pa legen indeverende side. Vi hab jer vil sende
elektronisk indlevere hen til os , selv om indeverende er i
hjelp eller ophjzlpning. Vi ligeledes give mod jer hen til
henvende sig til os med henblik pa Elektronisk Béger at vi
pristilbud at er uden omkostninger , og omkostningsfrit.
Vi lave nyde mange bgger i udenlandsk sprogene , men vi
lave ikke altid opstille sig hen til byde velkommen
elektronisk ( dataoverfgre ) fordi vi bare skabe anvendelig
den bgger eller den emner at er den hgjst anmodede.
Vi give mod jer hen til fortsztte hen til bed hen til God og
hen til fortszette hen til lare omkring Sig af lesning den Ny
Testamente. Vi velkommen jeres spgrgsmal og
bemerkninger af elektronisk indlevere.
KEKE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Norway - Norway — Norwegian -
Norway - Prayer Requests (praying ) to God - explained
in Norwegian Language
Norway Norwegian Nordic Prayer Jesus Christ a God Hvor Be
kanne hore meg bonn anmode gir hjelpe meg finner sprit Som kan
ledes
Snakker ἃ God , skaperen av det Univers , det Lord :
1. det du ville gir 4 meg tapperheten a be tingene det JEG
ngd a be
2. det du ville gir 4 meg tapperheten 4 mene du og
godkjenne hva du vil gjerne gjgre med meg livet , istedet for
meg opphgye meg egen ville ( hensikten ) over din.
3. det du ville gir meg hjelpe a ikke utleie meg rank av det
ubekjent a bli det be om tilgivelse , eller grunnlaget for meg
ikke for a anrette you.
4. det du ville gir meg hjelpe ἃ se og a hgre hvor a har den
sprit styrke JEG ngd ( igjennom din ord bibelen ) en ) for
begivenhetene for ut og Ὁ ) for meg egen personlig sprit
reise.
5. Det du God ville gir meg hjelpe a vil gjerne anrette Du
flere
6. Det du ville minne meg a samtalen med du prayerwhen )
JEG er frustrert eller inne problemet , istedet for préver a
Igse saker meg selv bare igjennom meg human styrke.
7. Det du ville gir meg Klokskap og en hjertet fylte med
Bibelsk Klokskap i den grad at JEG ville anrette du flere
effektivt.
8. Det du ville gir meg en gnske a studere din ord , bibelen ,
(det Ny Testamentet Gospel av John ), opp pa en personlig
basis
9. det du ville gir assistanse 4 meg i den grad at JEG er
kjopedyktig legge merke til saker inne bibelen ( din ord )
hvilke JEG kanne personlig fortelle til , og det vill hjelpe
meg oppfatte hva du gnske meg ἃ gjgre inne meg livet.
10. Det du ville gir meg stor discernment , a oppfatte hvor a
forklare ἃ andre hvem du er , og det JEG ville vere i stand
til hgre hvor a hgre og vite hvor a sta opp for du og din ord (
bibelen )
11. Det du ville bringe folk ( eller websites ) inne meg livet
hvem vil gjerne vite du , og hvem er kraftig inne deres
akkurat forstaelse av du God ); og Det du ville bringe folk (
eller websites ) inne meg livet hvem ville vere i stand til
oppmuntre meg a akkurat hgre hvor a dividere bibelen ordet
av sannhet (Timothy 215:).
12. Det du ville hjelpe meg ἃ hgre a ha stor forstaelse om
hvilken Bibel versjon er best , hvilke er hgyst akkurat , og
hvilke har de fleste sprit styrke & makt , og hvilke versjon
avtaler med det original manuskriptet det du inspirert
forfatternes av det Ny Testamentet a skrive.
13. Det du ville gir hjelpe 4 meg a bruk meg tid inne en fint
vei , og ikke for a slgseri meg tid opp pa False eller tom
emballasje metoder ἃ komme nermere a God ( bortsett fra
det er ikke virkelig Bibelsk ), og der hvor dem metoder
tilvirke for ikke sa lenge siden frist eller varer sprit fruit.
14. Det du ville gir assistanse ἃ meg ἃ oppfatte hva a kikke
etter inne en kirken eller en sted av -tilbeder , hva arter av
spgrsmal ἃ anmode , og det du ville hjelpe meg a finner
mene eller en fortid med stor sprit klokskap istedet for lett
eller false svar.
15. det du ville anledning meg ἃ erindre ἃ huske din ord
bibelen (som Romersk 8), i den grad at JEG kanne ha den
inne meg hjertet og ha meg sinn ferdig , og vere rede til a
gir en svaret a andre av det hape pa at JEG ha om du.
16. Det du ville bringe hjelpe 4 meg i den grad at meg egen
theology og doctrines ἃ vere enig i din ord , bibelen og det
du ville fortsette ἃ hjelpe meg vite hvor meg forstaelse av
doctrine kan forbedret i den grad at meg egen livet lifestyle
og forstaelse fortsetter ἃ bli ngyere hvorfor du gnske den a
bli for meg.
17. Det du ville apen meg sprit innblikk ( konklusjonene )
flere og flere , og det der hvor meg forstaelse eller
oppfattelse av du er ikke akkurat , det du ville hjelpe meg a
hgre hvem Jesus Christ virkelig er.
18. Det du ville gir hjelpe 4 meg i den grad at JEG ville
vere i stand til separat alle false rituals hvilke JEG ha
avhenge opp pa , fra din helt lzerer inne bibelen , eventuell
av hva JEG f¢lger er ikke av God , eller er i motsetning til
hva du vil gjerne lzre oss om fulgte du.
19. Det alle presser av darlig ville ikke ta fjerne alle sprit
forstaelse hvilke JEG ha , bortsett fra temmelig det JEG
ville selge i detalj kjennskapen til hvor a vite du og ikke for
a vere narret inne i disse dager av sprit bedrag.
20. Det du ville bringe sprit styrke og hjelpe 4 meg i den
grad at Jeg vil ikke for ἃ vere del av det Stor Faller Fjerne
eller av alle bevegelse hvilket kunne vere spiritually
counterfeit ἃ du og ἃ din Hellig Ord
21. Det hvis det er alt det JEG ha gjort det meg livet , eller
alle vei det JEG ha ikke reagert a du idet JEG burde ha og
det er forhindrer meg fra enten den ene eller den andre av
gaing med du, eller har forstaelse , det du ville bringe dem
saker / svar / begivenheter rygg i meg sinn , i den grad at
JEG ville renonsere pa seg inne navnet av Jesus Christ , og
alle av deres virkninger og konsekvensene , og det du ville
ombytte alle tomhet ,sadness eller gi opp hapet inne meg
livet med det Glede av det Lord , og det JEG ville vere flere
fokusere opp pa innlzring a fglge etter etter du av lesing din
ord , det Bibel
22. Det du ville apen meg eyes i den grad at JEG ville vere i
stand til klare se og anerkjenne hvis det er en Stor Bedrag
om Sprit emner , hvor ἃ oppfatte denne phenomenon ( eller
disse begivenheter ) fra en Bibelsk perspektiv , og det du
ville gir meg klokskap a vite hvorfor det Jeg vil hgre hvor a
hjelpe meg venner og elsket seg ( slektningene ) ikke vere
del av it.
23. Det du ville sikre det en gang meg eyes er apen og meg
sinn forstar det sprit vekt av aktuelle begivenheter tar sted
pa jorden , det du ville forberede meg hjertet ἃ godkjenne
din sannhet , og det du ville hjelpe meg oppfatte hvor a
finner tapperheten og styrke igjennom din Hellig Ord ,
bibelen. Inne navnet av Jesus Christ , JEG anmode om disse
saker bekreftende meg gnske ἃ bli i fglge avtalen din ville ,
og JEG spgr til deres klokskap og a har en kjerlighet til det
Sannhet Samarbeidsvillig
Flere pa bunnen av Side
Hvor a ha Evig Livet
Vi er glad hvis denne liste over ( bénn anmoder a God ) er
dugelig ἃ hjelpe du. Vi oppfatte denne kanskje ikke vere det
best eller hgyst effektiv oversettelse. Vi forsta det der er
mange annerledes veier av gjengivelsen innfall og ord. Hvis
du har en forslag for en bedre oversettelse , eller hvis du
ville like a ta en liten belgpet av din tid a sende antydninger
a oss , du ville vere hjalp tusenvis av andre mennesker
likeledes , hvem ville sa lese det forbedret oversettelse. Vi
ofte har en Ny Testamentet anvendelig inne din
omgangssprak eller inne sprakene det er sjelden eller gamle.
Hvis du er ser for en Ny Testamentet inne en spesifikk
omgangssprak , behage skrive til oss. Likeledes , vi vil
gjerne vere sikker og prove a meddele det en gang imellom
, vi gjgre tilbud bgker det er ufri og det gjgre bekostning
pengene.
Bortsett fra hvis du kan ikke by noen av dem elektronisk
bgker , vi kanne ofte gjgre en bytte av elektronisk bgker for
hjelpe med oversettelse eller oversettelse arbeide. Du som
ikke har a bli en profesjonell arbeider , kun fa stamgjest
personen hvem er interessert i hjalp. Du burde har en
computer eller du burde ha adgang til en computer for din
innenbys bibliotek eller universitet eller universitet , siden
dem vanligvis ha bedre forbindelser a det sykehuslege. Du
kanne likeledes vanligvis opprette din egen personlig
LEDIG elektronisk innlevere regningen av gar a
mail.yahoo.com
Behage ta en @yeblikk a finner det elektronisk innlevere
henvende seg lokalisert nederst eller utgangen av denne
side. Vi hape du ville sende elektronisk innlevere ἃ oss ,
hvis denne er av hjelpe eller oppmuntring. Vi likeledes
oppmuntre du a sette seg i forbindelse med oss angaende
Elektronisk Bgker det vi tilbud det er uten bekostning , og
ledig.
Vi gjgre ha mange bgker inne utenlandsk sprakene , bortsett
fra vi ikke alltid sted seg a fa elektronisk ( dataoverfgre )
fordi vi bare lage anvendelig bgkene eller emnene det er de
fleste anmodet. Vi oppmuntre du a fortsette ἃ be ἃ God og a
fortsette 4 hgre om Seg av lesing det Ny Testamentet. Vi
velkommen din spgrsmal og kommentarer av elektronisk
innlevere.
KEKE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Modern Greek
Προσευχή oto Θεό Αγαπητός Θεός, Lac ευχαριστούμε ότι
αὐτό το Ευαγγέλιο ἡ αὐτή η νέα διαθήκη ἔχει
απελευθερωθεί ἔτσι ὥστε είμαστε σε θέση va μάθουμξ
TEPLOGOTEPOV για σας. Παρακαλώ βοηθήστε τους
ανθρώπους αρμόδιους για νὰ καταστήσει αὐτό TO
ηλεκτρονικό βιβλίο διαθέσιμο. Ξέρετε ποιοι είναι καὶ εἰστε
σε θέση va τοὺς βοηθήσετε. Παρακαλῶ τοὺς βοηθήστε για
va ciote σε θέση να ἀπασχοληθεί γρήγορα, καὶ νὰ
καταστήσει σε περισσότερα NAEKTPOVIKE βιβλία διαθέσιμα
Παρακαλώ τοὺς βοηθήστε για va ἔχετε όλους τοὺς πόρους,
τὰ χρήματα, τη δύναμη καὶ TO χρόνο ότι χρειάζονται
προκειμένου να είναι σε θέση να συνεχίσουν για σας.
Παρακαλώ βοηθήστε εκείνοι nov εἰναι μέρος της ομάδας
ποῦ τοὺς βοηθά σε καθημερινή βάση. Παρακαλῶ τοὺς
δώστε τη δύναμη για va. συνεχίσετε καὶ va δώσετε σε κάθε
évav από τοὺς TO σπιρίτσουαλ ποὺ καταλαβαίνει για την
ἐργασία ότι τους θέλετε για va. κάνετε. Παρακαλῶ βοηθήστε
κάθε Evac από τοὺς για Va. μην ἔχετε TO φόβο και για νὰ
θυμηθείτε ότι ciote ο Θεός ποὺ ἀπαντά στην προσευχή καὶ
ποῦ είναι ὑπεύθυνος για GAG.
Προσεύχομαι ότι θα τοὺς ενθαρρύνατε, καὶ ότι τους
προστατεύετε, καὶ ἡ ἐργασία & το υπουργείο ότι
συμμετέχουν.
Προσεύχομαι ότι θα τοὺς προστατεύατε από τις πνευματικές
δυνάμεις ἡ άλλα ἐμπόδια που θα μπορούσαν νὰ τοὺς
βλάψουν ή νὰ τοὺς επιβραδύνουν. Παρακαλῶ pe βοηθήστε
όταν χρησιμοποιῶ αὑτήν την νέα διαθήκη για να σκεφτώ
ἐπίσης τοὺς ἀνθρώπους TOV ἔχουν καταστήσει αὐτήν την
ἔκδοση διαθέσιμη, ἔτσι ὥστε μπορώ Va TPOGENIA για τοὺς
καὶ ἔτσι μπορούν νὰ συνεχίσουν va βοηθούν περισσότερους
ανθρώπους.
Προσεύχομαι ότι θα μου δίνατε μια ἀγάπη Tov 1epob0 Word
σας (η νέα διαθήκη), καὶ ότι θα μου δίνατε την πνευματικές
φρόνηση καὶ τη διάκριση για νὰ ous ξέρετε καλύτερα καὶ
για VO. καταλάβετε τη χρονική περίοδο ότι ζούμε μέσα.
Παρακαλώ we βοηθήστε για νὰ ξέρετε πώς va ECETAOEL τις
δυσκολίες ότι ἐρχομαι αντιμέτωπος με κάθε ημέρα. O
Λόρδος God, με βοηθά για va θελήσει νὰ σας ξέρει
καλύτερα καὶ va θελήσει να βοηθήσει άλλους Χριστιανούς
στην περιοχή μοῦ και GE GAO τον κόσμο.
Προσεύχομαι ότι θα δίνατε την ηλεκτρονική ομάδα βιβλίων
καὶ ἐκείνοι TOV τοὺς βοηθούν ἡ φρόνησή σας. Προσεύχομαι
ότι θα βοηθούσατε τὰ μεμονωμένα μέλη της οικογένειάς
τοὺς (καὶ της οικογένειάς μου) για να ξξαπατηθείτε όχι
πνευματικά, αλλά γιὰ VOL σας καταλάβετε καὶ γιὰ νὰ
θελήσετε να σας δεχτείτε και νὰ ἀακολουθήσετε με κάθε
τρόπο. Επίσης παρέχετε μας την άνεση καὶ οδηγίες σε
αὐτούς τοὺς χρόνους και σας CTO γιὰ να κάνω αὐτά τὰ
πράγματα στο όνομα TOV Ιησού, Amen,
KKK EEK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
German -- Deutch - Allemand
German Prayers Gebet zum Gott wie man wie horen kann
dass meinem Gebet wie bittet Hilfe zu mir zu geben wie
man geistige Anleitung
German - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God -
explained in German Language
Mit Gott sprechen, der Schdpfer des Universums, der Lord:
1., die Sie zu mir dem Mut, die Sachen zu beten geben
wiirden, die ich benotige, um 2. zu beten, die Sie zu mir dem
Mut, Ihnen zu glauben und anzunehmen geben wiirden, was
Sie mit meinem Leben tun méchten, anstelle von mir meine
Selbst erhebend Wille (Absicht) iiber Ihrem.
3., denen Sie mir Hilfe geben wiirden, um meine Furcht vor
dem Unbekannten die Entschuldigungen nicht werden zu
lassen oder die Grundlage fiir mich, zum Sie nicht zu
dienen.
4., der Sie mir Hilfe, um zu sehen geben wiirden und zu
erlernen, wie man die geistige Starke ich hat, bendtigen Sie
(durch Ihr Wort die Bibel) A) fiir die Falle voran und B) fiir
meine eigene persOnliche geistige Reise.
5. DaB Sie Gott mir Hilfe geben wiirden, um Sie mehr
dienen zu wiinschen
6. DaB Sie mich erinnern wiirden, mit Ihnen zu sprechen
(prayer)when mich werden frustriert oder in der
Schwierigkeit, anstatt zu versuchen, Sachen selbst nur durch
meine menschliche Starke zu beheben.
7. Da® Sie mir Klugheit und ein Herz geben wiirden, fillten
mit biblischer Klugheit, damit ich Sie effektiv dienen wiirde.
8. DaB Sie mir einen Wunsch geben wiirden, Ihr Wort, die
Bibel zu studieren, (das neues Testament-Evangelium von
John) auf pers6nlicher Ebene
9. das Sie Unterstiitzung zu mir geben wiirden, damit ich
bin, Sachen in der Bibel (Ihr Wort) zu beachten der ich auf
und der persGnlich beziehen kann mir hilft, zu verstehen,
was Sie mich in meinem Leben tun wiinschen.
10. DaB Sie mir groBe Einsicht geben wiirden, um zu
verstehen wie man anderen erklart, die Sie sind, und da ich
sein wiirde, zu erlernen, wie man erlernt und kann fiir Sie
und Ihr Wort (die Bibel) oben stehen
11. DaB Sie Leute (oder Web site) in meinem Leben holen
wiirden, die Sie kennen méchten und die in ihrem genauen
Verstandnis von Ihnen stark sind (Gott); und das wiirden Sie
Leute (oder Web site) in meinem Leben holen, das ist, mich
anzuregen, genau zu erlernen, wie man die Bibel das Wort
der Wahrheit (2 Timotheegras 2:15) teilt.
12. DaB Sie mir helfen wiirden zu erlernen, groBes
Versténdnis iiber, welche Bibelversion zu haben am besten
ist, die am genauesten ist und die die geistigste Starke u. die
Energie hat und dem Version mit den urspriinglichen
Manuskripten iibereinstimmt, daB Sie die Autoren des neuen
Testaments anspornten zu schreiben.
13. DaB Sie mir Hilfe, um meine Zeit in einer guten Weise
zu verwenden geben wiirden, und meine Zeit auf den
falschen oder leeren Methoden nicht zu vergeuden, naeher
an Gott (aber dem, zu erhalten nicht wirklich biblisch seien
Sie) und wo jene Methoden keine lange Bezeichnung oder
dauerhafte geistige Frucht produzieren.
14. DaB Sie mir Unterstiitzung geben wiirden, was zu
verstehen, in einer Kirche oder in einem Ort der Anbetung
zu suchen, welche Arten der Fragen zum zu bitten und daB
Sie mir helfen wiirden, Glaubiger oder einen Pastor mit
grofer geistiger Klugheit anstelle von den einfachen oder
falschen Antworten zu finden.
15. den Sie mich veranlassen wiirden, mich zu erinnern, um
sich Ihr Wort zu merken die Bibel (wie Romans ist 8), damit
ich es in meinem Herzen haben und an meinen Verstand
sich vorbereiten lassen kann, und bereit, eine Antwort zu
anderen der Hoffnung zu geben, die ich tiber Sie habe.
16. Πα! Sie mir Hilfe damit meine eigene Theologie und
Lehren holen wiirden, um mit Ihrem Wort, die Bibel
iibereinzustimmen und daB Sie fortfahren wiirden, mir zu
helfen, zu k6nnen, mein Verstandnis der Lehre verbessert
werden kann, damit mein eigenes Leben, Lebensstil und
Verstehen fortfahrt, zu sein naeher an, was Sie es fiir mich
sein wiinschen.
17. DaB Sie meinen geistigen Einblick
(Zusammenfassungen) mehr und mehr 6ffnen wiirden und
daB, wo mein Verstindnis oder Vorstellung von Ihnen nicht
genau ist, daB Sie mir helfen wiirden, zu erlernen, wem
Jesus Christ wirklich ist.
18. Da® Sie mir Hilfe geben wiirden, damit ich in der
LageSEIN wiirde, alle falschen Rituale zu trennen, denen
ich von, von Ihrem freien Unterricht in der Bibel, wenn
irgendwelche abgehangen habe von, was ich folgend bin, ist
nicht vom Gott, oder ist kontriir zu, was Sie uns unterrichten
wiinschen - iiber das Folgen Sie.
19. DaB keine Krifte des Ubels nicht irgendwie geistiges
Verstandnis wegnehmen wiirden, das ich habe, aber eher,
daB ich das Wissen behalten wiirde von, wie man Sie kennt
und nicht an diesen Tagen der geistigen Tauschung betrogen
wird.
20. DaB Sie geistige Starke holen und zu mir helfen wiirden,
damit ich nicht ein Teil von groBen weg fallen oder
irgendeiner Bewegung bin, die zu Ihnen und zu Ihrem
heiligen Wort Angelegenheiten nachgemacht sein wiirde.
21. Das, wenn es alles gibt, das ich in meinem Leben getan
habe oder irgendeine Weise, dafi ich nicht auf Sie reagiert
habe, wie ich haben sollte und die mich entweder am Gehen
mit Ihnen hindert oder Haben des Verstehens, daB Sie jene
things/responses/events zuriick in meinen Verstand, damit
ich auf sie im Namen Jesus Christ verzichten wiirde, und
alle ihre von und von Konsequenzen holen wiirden und dab
Sie jede mégliche Leere, Traurigkeit oder Verzweiflung in
meinem Leben mit der Freude am Lord ersetzen wiirden und
daB ich mehr auf das Lernen, Ihnen zu folgen gerichtet
wiirde, indem man Ihr Wort las, die Bibel.
22. DaB Sie meine Augen 6ffnen wiirden, damit ich in der
LageSEIN wiirde, offenbar zu sehen und zu erkennen, wenn
es eine grofe Tauschung tiber geistige Themen gibt, wie
man dieses Phanomen (oder diese Falle) von einer
biblischen Perspektive und daB Sie mir Klugheit geben
wiirden, um zu wissen und damit ich erlernt versteht, wie
man meinen Freunden und liebte eine (Verwandte) ein Teil
von ihm nicht zu sein hilft.
23 ) Sie sicherstellen wiirden, daf einmal meine Augen
und mein Verstand gedffnet sind, versteht die geistige
Bedeutung der gegenwartigen Falle, die in der Welt
stattfinden, da Sie mein Herz vorbereiten wiirden, um Thre
Wahrheit anzunehmen und da Sie mir helfen wiirden, zu
verstehen, wie man Mut und Starke durch Ihr heiliges Wort,
die Bibel findet. Im Namen Jesus Christ, bitte ich um diese
Sachen, die meinen Wunsch bestitigen, Ihr Wille
tibereinzustimmen, und ich bitte um Ihre Klugheit und eine
Liebe der Wahrheit zu haben, Amen.
Mehr an der Unterseite der Seite
wie man ewiges Leben u.
Hat
Wir sind froh, wenn diese Liste (der Gebetantrige zum
Gott) in der LageIST, Sie zu unterstiitzen. Wir verstehen,
dai diese méglicherweise nicht die beste oder
wirkungsvollste Ubersetzung sein kann. Wir verstehen, daB
es viele unterschiedliche Weisen des Ausdriickens von von
Gedanken und von von Wortern gibt. Wenn Sie einen
Vorschlag fiir eine bessere Ubersetzung haben oder wenn
Sie etwas Ihrer Zeit dauern méchten, Vorschlage zu
schicken uns, werden Sie Tausenden der Leute auch helfen,
die dann die verbesserte Ubersetzung lesen. Wir haben
haufig ein neues Testament, das in Ihrer Sprache oder in den
Sprachen vorhanden ist, die selten oder alt sind.
Wenn Sie nach einem neuen Testament in einer spezifischen
Sprache suchen, schreiben Sie uns bitte. Auch wir méchten
sicher sein und versuchen, das manchmal mitzuteilen, bieten
wir Biicher an, die nicht frei sind und die Geld kosten.
Aber, wenn Sie nicht einige jener elektronischen Biicher
sich leisten kOnnen, k6nnen wir einen Austausch der
elektronischen Biicher fiir Hilfe bei der Ubersetzung oder
bei der Ubersetzung Arbeit haufig tun. Sie miissen nicht ein
professioneller Arbeiter sein, nur eine regelmaBige Person,
die interessiert ist, an zu helfen.
Sie sollten einen Computer haben, oder Sie sollten Zugang
zu einem Computer an Ihrer lokalen Bibliothek oder
Hochschule oder Universitat haben, da die normalerweise
bessere Anschliisse zum Internet haben. Sie k6nnen Ihr
eigenes personliches FREIES Konto der elektronischen
Post, indem Sie zum mail.yahoo.com
auch normalerweise herstellen gehen dauern bitte einen
Moment, um die Adresse der elektronischen Post zu finden
befunden an der Unterseite oder am Ende dieser Seite.
Wir hoffen, da Sie uns elektronische Post schicken, wenn
diese hilfreich oder Ermutigung ist. Wir regen Sie auch an,
mit uns hinsichtlich der elektronischen Biicher in
Verbindung zu treten, die wir dem sind ohne Kosten und
freies
anbieten, die, wir viele Biicher in den Fremdsprachen haben,
aber wir nicht sie immer setzen, um elektronisch zu
empfangen (Download) weil wir nur vorhanden die Biicher
oder die Themen bilden, die erbeten sind. Wir regen Sie an
fortzufahren, zum Gott zu beten und fortzufahren, iiber ihn
zu erlernen, indem wir das neue Testament lesen. Wir
begriiBen Thre Fragen und Anmerkungen durch
elektronische Post.
KEE KEE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Caro Deus , Obrigada que esta Novo Testamento tem sido
langado de modo a que nés somos capaz aprender mais
sobre a ti. Por favor ajudar a gente responsavel por fazendo
esta Electrénico livro disponivel.
Por favor ajudar eles estarem capaz de trabalho rapidamente
, e fazer mais Electrénico livros disponivel Por favor ajudar
eles haverem todos os recursos , Ο dinheiro , a forca e as
horas que elas precisar a fim de ser capaz de guardar
trabalhando para si.
Por favor ajudar aquelas esse are parte da equipa essa ajuda
Ihes num todos os dias base. Por favor dar lhes a forga
continuar e dar cada deles 0 espiritual comprendendo para o
trabalho que vocé quer eles fazerem. Por favor ajudar cada
um deles para nao ter medo 6 lembrar que tu és o deus ὁ
qual respostas oragao e quem é encarregado de todas as
coisas.
EU orar que a ti would encorajar lhes , e que vocé protege
lhes , 6 o trabalho & ministério que elas 5880 comprometido
em. EU orar que vocé protegeria lhes de o Espiritual Forgas
ou outro barreiras isso podeia ser maleficio lhes ou lento
Ihes abaixo.
Por favor ajudar a mim quando Eu uso esta Novo
Testamento para também reflectir a gente o qual ter feito
esta edicao disponivel , de modo a que eu possa orar para
eles e por conseguinte eles podem continuar ajudar mais
pessoas EU orar que vocé daria a mim um amar do seu
Divino Palavra ( 0 novo Testamento ), e que vocé daria a
mim espiritual sabedoria e discernment conhecer a ti melhor
e para comprender 0 periodo de tempo que nés somos
vivendo em.
Por favor ajudar eu saber como lidar com as dificuldades
que Eu sou confrontado com todos os dias. Lorde Deus ,
Ajudar eu querer conhecer a ti Melhor e querer ajudar outro
Christian no meu area e pelo mundo. EU orar que vocé daria
o Electrénico livro equipa e aquelas 0 qual trabalho no
Websters e aqueles que ajudar Ihes seu sabedoria. EU orar
que vocé ajudaria o individuo membros do seu familia (ea
minha familia ) para nao ser espiritual enganar , mas
comprender a ti e querer aceitar e seguir a ti em todos
bastante. e Eu pergunto vocé fazer estas coisas em nome de
Jesus , Amen ,
Dear God,
Thank you that this New Testament
has been released so that we are able
to learn more about you.
Please help the people responsible for making this
Electronic book available. Please help them to be able to
work fast, and make more Electronic books available
Please help them to have all the resources, the money, the
strength and the time that they need in order to be able to
keep working for You.
Please help those that are part of the team that help them on
an everyday basis. Please give them the strength to continue
and give each of them the spiritual understanding for the
work that you want them to do. Please help each of them to
not have fear and to remember that you are the God who
answers prayer and who is in charge of everything.
I pray that you would encourage them, and that you protect
them, and the work & ministry that they are engaged in.
I pray that you would protect them from the Spiritual Forces
or other obstacles that could harm them or slow them down.
Please help me when I use this New Testament to also think
of the people who have made this edition available, so that I
can pray for them and so they can continue to help more
people
I pray that you would give me a love of your Holy Word
(the New Testament), and that you would give me spiritual
wisdom and discernment to know you better and to
understand the period of time that we are living in.
Please help me to know how to deal with the difficulties that
Iam confronted with every day. Lord God, Help me to want
to know you Better and to want to help other Christians in
my area and around the world.
I pray that you would give the Electronic book team and
those who work on the website and those who help them
your wisdom.
I pray that you would help the individual members of their
family (and my family) to not be spiritually deceived, but
to understand you and to want to accept and follow you in
every way.
and 1 ask you to do these things in the name of Jesus,
Amen,
888888
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EEE
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ὦ
Croatian Croatian Croatian
Croatian - Prayer Requests (praying ) to God - explained
in Croatian Language
Croatian Croatia Prayer Isus Krist Moljenje to Bog Kako to
Moliti moze cuti moj pitati popustanje ponuditi mene
Govorenje to Bog , Stvoritelj dana Svemir , Gospodar :
1. taj te Ce popuStanje meni u hrabrost to moliti predmet taj
Trebam to moliti
2. taj te Ce popuStanje meni u hrabrost to vjerovati te i
prihvatiti Sto koji Zelite za napraviti sa mojim Zivot ,
umjesto mene uznijeti moj posjedovati htijenje ( namjera )
iznad tvoj.
3. taj te Ce popuStanje mene ponuditi ne pustiti moj
strahovanje dana nepoznat postati isprika , ili baza za mene
ne to posluZitelj you.
4. taj te Ce popuStanje mene ponuditi vidjeti i nauciti kako to
imati duhovni snaga Trebam ( preko tvoj rijeé Biblija ) ) za
jedan dan dogadaj ispred i b ) za moj posjedovati osobni
duhovni putovanje.
5. Taj te Bog Ce popustanje mene ponuditi iStanje to
posluZitelj Te vise
6. Taj te e podsjetiti mene to pri¢ati sa te prayerwhen ) Ja
sam frustriran ili u problemima , umjesto teZak to odluka
predmet ja osobno jedini preko moj Covjecji snaga.
7. Taj te Ge popuStanje mene Mudrost i srce ispunjen sa
Biblijski Mudrost tako da JA ¢e posluZitelj te viSe efektivno.
8. Taj te Ce popuStanje mene Zelja to studirati tvoj rije€ ,
Biblija , (novim Oporuka Evandelje od John ), na osobni
baza
9. taj te Ce popuStanje pomoc meni τι tako da Ja sam u
mogu¢nosti to obavijest predmet in Biblija ( tvoj rijeé ) Sto
Ja mogu osobni povezivati se , i da htijenje pomo¢é mene
shvatiti Sto koji Zelite mene za napraviti u mojem Zivot.
10. Taj te Ce popuStanje mene velik raspoznavanje , to
shvatiti kako to objasniti to ostali tko ti si, ida JA bi bilo u
mogucnosti nauciti kako nau€citi i znati kako to pristajati uza
Sto te i tvoj rijet ( Biblija )
11. Taj te ἐβ donijeti narod (ili websiteovi ) u mojem Zivot
tko iStanje to znati te , i tko jesu jak in njihov tocnost
sporazum od te ( bog ); i da te Ge donijeti narod ( ili
websiteovi ) u mojem Zivot koji ce biti u mogucnosti to
hrabriti mene to precizan nau¢ite kako podijeliti Biblija rijeé
od istina (2 Pla8ljiv 215:).
12. Taj te Ce pomocé mene nauCiti to imati velik sporazum o
Sto Biblija ina¢ici je najbolji , Sto je vecina to€énost , i Sto je
preko duhovni snaga & Power PC, i Sto ina¢ici sporazum sa
izvorni rukopis taj te nadahnut autorstvo dana Nov Oporuka
to pisati.
13. Taj te Ce popuStanje ponuditi mene koriStenje moj
vrijeme in dobar put , i ne to prosipati moj vrijeme na
Neistinit ili prazan Metodije da biste dobili Zatvori to Bog (
ali koji nisu vjerno Biblijski ), i gdje svi oni Metodije
stvarajuci nijedan Ceznuti uvjeti ili trajan duhovni voce.
14. Taj te Ce popuStanje pomo¢ meni u to shvatiti Sto uciniti
traZiti in Churchill ili mjesto od moliti se , Sto rod od pitanje
to pitati , i da te δ pomoé mene pronaci onaj koji vjeruje ili
pastor sa velik duhovni mudrost umjesto lahak ili neistinit
odgovoriti.
15. taj te Ce nanijeti mene to sjecati se to sjecati se tvoj rijec
Biblija ( kao Sto je Rumunjski 8), tako da Ja mogu imati
Internet u mojem srce i imati moj imati Sto protiv spreman ,
i biti spreman to popuStanje odgovoriti to ostali dana
uzdanica taj Imam Ο te.
16. Taj te Ce donijeti ponuditi mene tako da moj posjedovati
teologija i doktrina to poklapati se tvoj rijeé , Biblija i da te
ée nastaviti to pomo¢ mene znati kako moj sporazum od
doktrina moZe poboljsati tako da moj posjedovati Zivot , stil
zivota i sporazum nastaviti biti Zatvori to Sto koji Zelite
Internet biti za mene.
17. Taj te Ge OpenBSD moj duhovni unutar ( zakljucak )
vise i vise , i da gdje svi moj sporazum ili percepcija od te
nije to¢nost , taj te Ge pomoé mene nauCiti tko Isus Krist
vjerno je.
18. Taj te Ce popuStanje ponuditi mene tako da JA bi bilo u
moguénosti to odijeljen bilo koji neistinit ritualni Sto Imam
zavisnost na , from tvoj jasan pomoé u ucéenju in Biblija ,
ako postoje od Sto Ja sam sljedece nije od Bog , ili je ugovor
to Sto koji Zelite to vas nauCiti nas o sljedece te.
19. Taj bilo koji sila od zlo ¢e ne oduteti bilo koji duhovni
sporazum Sto Imam, ali radije taj JA ¢e évrsto drzati znanje
kako to znati te ine biti lukav in te dani od duhovni varka.
20. Taj te ¢e donijeti duhovni snaga i ponuditi mene tako da
JA nece biti dio ognjevit Jesen Daleko ili od bilo koji pokret
Sto bi bilo produhovljeno krivotvoren novac vama i u va
Svet Rijeé
21. Da ako ima je iSta taj Imam ispunjavanja u mojem Zivot
, ili bilo koji put taj Imam ne odgovaranje vama kao JA
trebaju imati i da je koji se moZe sprijeciti mene sa ili
hodanje sa te , ili vlasniStvo sporazum , taj te Ce donijeti oni
predmet / reakcija / dogadaj leda u moj imati Sto protiv ,
tako da JA ἐδ odre¢i se njima in ime od Isus Krist , i svi od
njihov efekt i posljedica , i da te Ce opet βίαν! bilo koji
praznina ,sadness ili izgubiti nadu u mojem Zivot sa Ono Sto
pruza uZitak dana Gospodar , i da JA bi bilo vise fokusirati
na znanje to udarac te mimo Citanje tvoj rije¢ , Biblija
22. Taj te Ce OpenBSD moj o¢i tako da JA bi bilo u
mogucnosti to jasno vidjeti i prepoznati ako ima Velik
Varka o Duhovni tema , kako to shvatiti ovaj fenomen ( ili
te dogadaj ) from Biblijski perspektiva , i da te ¢e
popuStanje mene mudrost to znati i tako dalje taj JA htijenje
naucite kako pomoé moj prijatelj i voljen sam sebe (
odnosni ) ne biti dio it.
23. Taj te δ osigurali da jedanput moj o¢i jesu OpenBSD i
moj imati Sto protiv shvatiti duhovni izrazajnost od tekuci
dogadaj uzimanje mjesto u svijetu , taj te Ce pripremiti moj
srce to prihvatiti tvoj istina , i da te Ge pomocé mene shvatiti
kako prona¢i hrabrost i snaga preko tvoj Svet Rije¢ , Biblija.
In ime od Isus Krist , JA traZiti te predmet potvrditi moj
Zelja biti slozno tvoj htijenje , i Ja sam iskanje tvoj mudrost i
to imati hatar dana Istina Da
Vise podno Stranica
Kako to imati Vje¢an Zivot
Mi jesu veseo ako ovaj rub ( od moljenje molba to Bog ) je
u mogucnosti to pomoci te. Mi shvatiti ovaj mozda nece biti
najbolji ili vecina djelotvoran prevodenje. Mi shvatiti koji su
mnogobrojan razlicit putevi od istiskivanje misao i rijec.
Ukoliko imati sugestija za bolji prevodenje , ili ukoliko ¢e
voljeti uzeti malolitraZan iznos od tvoj vrijeme to poslati
sugestija nama , te htijenje biti pomoc tisuca od ostali narod
isto tako , koji Ce onda Citanje oplemenjen prevodenje. Mi
vise puta imati Nov Oporuka raspoloZiv u να jezik ili in
jezik koji su rijedak ili star. Ako ste obliéje za Nov Oporuka
in specifi¢an jezik , ugoditi korespondirati nas. Isto tako , mi
iStanje istinabog i pokuSati komunicirati taj katkada , mi
obaviti ponuda knjiga koji nisu Slobodan i da obaviti troSak
novac.
Ali ukoliko ne moéi priuStiti neki od oni elektronski knjiga ,
mi moZe vise puta obaviti izmjena od elektronski knjiga za
pomoé sa prevodenje ili prevodenje funkcionirati. Nemate
biti koji se odnosi na zvanje radnik , samo jedan dan
pravilan osoba tko je zainteresirana za pomoc. Te trebaju
imati racunalo ili te trebaju imati pristup to ra¢unalo at tvoj
lokalni knjiZnica ili fakulteti ili sveuéiliSta , otada oni obi¢éno
imati bolji povezivanje to Internet. MoZete isto tako obi¢éno
utemeljiti tvoj posjedovati osobni SLOBODAN elektroni¢ka
posta raCun odlaskom na mail.yahoo.com
Ugoditi uzeti tren pronaci elektroni¢ka posta adresa smjestiti
na dnu ili kraj od ovaj stranica. Nadamo se te htijenje poslati
elektroni¢ka poSta nama , ako ovaj je od pomo¢ ili
hrabrenje. Mi isto tako hrabriti te to kontakt nas zabrinutost
Elektronski Knjiga koju nudimo koji su sa troSak , i
slobodan.
Mi obaviti imati mnogobrojan knjiga in stran jezik , ali mi
ne uvijek mjesto njima to primiti elektronski ( preuzimanje
datoteka ) jer mi jedini izraditi raspoloziv knjiga ili tema
koji su preko molba. Mi hrabriti te to nastaviti to moliti to
Bog i to nastaviti nauciti o Njemu mimo Citanje novim
Oporuka. Mi dobrodoSli na tvoj pitanje i komentirajte mimo
elektroni¢ka poSta.
KEKE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
CZECH CZECH TCHEK
Czech Prayer Modlitba Kristian jezuita Kristus az k Buh Jak
Modlit Buh pocinovat slyset modlitba k ptat Buh darovat
pomoci mne
Czech - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God -
explained in Czech Language
Mluveni az k Buh, ¢len uréity Stvofitel of Glen uréity
Soubor , €len uréity Hospodin :
1. aby tebe chtél bych darovat aZ k mne Clen urcity kuraz az
k modlit €len urcity majetek aby Nemusim az k modlit
2. aby tebe chtél bych darovat az k mne Clen urcity kuraZ az
k domnivat se tebe a prijmout jaky tebe potfeba az k jednat
ma duch , misto mne povySit ja s4m vule ( cil ) nad tvuj.
3. aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne pomoci az k ne dovolit
ma bat se of ¢len urcity neznama aZ k stat se Clen urcity
odpustit , i €len urcity baze do mne rozchazet se v nazorech
slouzit you.
4. aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne pomoci az k vidét a az k
dostat instrukce jak? az k mit Clen urcity duchovni sila
Nemusim ( docela tvuj slovo len uréity Bible ) jeden ) do
€len urcity prihoda vpied a Ὁ ) do ja sam osobni duchovni
cesta.
5. Aby tebe Β΄ chtél bych darovat mne pomoci aZ k
potfeba az k slouzit Tebe vice 6. Aby tebe chtél bych
pripomenout komu mne az k rozmlouvat s tebe prayerwhen
) JA am zmaieny ¢i do nesnaz , misto trying a% k analyzovat
majetek ja sam ale docela ma lidsky sila.
7. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne Moudrost a jeden srdce
πάκυρ 5 Biblicky Moudrost tak, Ze JA chtél bych slouZit
tebe vice efektivni. 8. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne
jeden poruéit aZ k uéeni tvij slovo , Elen uréity Bible , (
Novy zakon Evangelium of Jan ), dale jeden osobni baze
9, aby tebe chtél bych darovat pomoc aZ k mne tak, Ze JA
am schopny az k oznameni majetek do ¢len urcity Bible (
tvuj slovo ) kdo Dovedu co se mé tyée byt v poméru k sem
tam , to posta¢i pomoci mne dovidat se jaky tebe potfeba
mune aZ k zavrazdit ma duch.
10. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne celek bystrost , aZ k
dovidat se jak? az k jasné se vyjadfit az k jini kdo tebe ar, a
aby JA chtél bych byt schopny aZ k dostat instrukce jak? aZ
k dostat instrukce a vRdRt jak? a% k postavit se za tebe a
tvuj slovo ( ¢len urcity Bible )
11. Aby tebe chtél bych nést lid ( €i websites ) do ma duch
kdo potieba εξ k vRdRt tebe , a kdo ar silny do jejich ptesny
dohoda of tebe ( bith ); a Aby tebe chtél bych nést lid ( Gi
websites ) do ma duch kdo ville byt schopny aZ k dodat
mysli mne az k presny dostat instrukce jak? aZ k délit Clen
urcity Bible Pismo svaté pravda (2 Bazlivy 215:).
12. Aby tebe chtél bych pomoci mne az k dostat instrukce aZ
k mit celek dohoda kolem kdo Bible liéeni is nejlépe , kdo is
nejéetnéjsi pfesny , a kdo 3sg.préz.od have €len urcity
nejcetnéjsi duchovni sila & mnozstvi , a kdo li¢eni souhlasi
jit s duchem Casu original rukopis aby tebe dychat Clen
urcity spisovatele of Novy zakon az k psat.
13. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat pomoci az k mne az k
cviceni ma Cas do jeden blaho cesta , a rozchazet se v
nazorech zpustoSit ma ¢as dale Chybny ¢i hladovy metody
aZ k brat blizky aZ k Buh ( kdyby ne ar ne opravdu Biblicky
), a kde those metody napsat ne dlouha hlaska Cas Ci
{lastingllstalylltrvaly} } duchovni nést ovoce.
14. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat pomoc az k mne az k
dovidat se jaky aZ k hledat do jeden cirkev ¢i jeden bydlisté
of uctivant , jaky rody of otazky az k ptat se , a aby tebe
chtél bych pomoci mne az k nalez vérici Ci jeden duchovni 5
celek duchovni moudrost misto bezstarostny ¢i chybny
odpovida.
15. aby tebe chtél bych byt pricinou mne na pamétnou az k
memorovat tvij slovo élen uréity Bible ( jako takovy Riman
8), tak, Ze Dovedu mit ono do ma srdce a mit ma mysl
pripraveny , a byt hbity az k darovat neuré. Clen byt v
souhlase s jini of Clen urcity nadéje aby Mam u sebe tebe.
16. Aby tebe chtél bych nést pomoci az k mne tak, Ze ja sam
bohoslovi a doktrina aZ k souhlasit s tvuj slovo , Elen urcity
Bible a aby tebe chtél bych stale byt pomoci mne vRdRt
jak? ma dohoda of doktrina pocinovat byt opravit tak, Ze ja
sam duch lifestyle a dohoda odroéit az k byt blizky k
jakému téelu tebe potieba ono az k byt pro mne.
17. Aby tebe chtél bych nechranény ma duchovni jasnozieni
(konec ) ¢im dale, tim vice , a aby kde ma dohoda ¢i
chapavost of tebe is ne presny , aby tebe chtél bych pomoci
mne az k dostat instrukce kdo Jezuita Kristus opravdu is.
18. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat pomoci a% k mne tak, Ze JA
chtél bych byt schopny az k oddéleny jakykoliv chybny
obiad kdo JA mit divéra dale , dle tviij cely doktrina do élen
uréity Bible , jestli vilbec of jaky JA am nasledujici is ne of
Buh, Ciis proti Cemu jaky tebe potieba aZ k ucit us kolem
nasledujici tebe.
19. Aby jakykoliv dohnat of neStésti chtél bych ne odebrat
jakykoliv duchovni dohoda kdo JA mit , aby ne dosti aby JA
chtél bych drzet élen uréity znalost éeho jak? δ k vRdRt
tebe a rozchazet se v nazorech byt klamat do tezaury days of
duchovni klam.
20. Aby tebe chtél bych nést duchovni sila a pomoci az k
mne tak, Ze JA vule rozchazet se v nazorech byt Cast of
notablové Klesani Pryé ¢i of jakykoliv pohyb kdo chtél bych
byt duchovo falSovat aZ k tebe a aZ k tvij Svaty Slovo
21. Aby -li tam is cokoli aby JA mit utahany ma duch,, éi
jakkoli aby JA mit ne dotazovand osoba az k tebe a¢koliv
Sel bych mit a to jest opatieni mne dle jeden nebo druhy
kraceni 5 tebe , Ci having dohoda , aby tebe chtél bych nést
those majetek / citlivost pristroje / prihoda bek do ma mysl ,
tak, Ze JA chtél bych nectit barvu je jménem koho Jezuita
Kristus , a celek of jejich dojem a dosah , a aby tebe chtél
eos
bych dat na drivéjsi misto jakykoliv emptiness ,sadness ¢i
beznadéjnost do ma duch jit 5 duchem €asu Radost of ¢len
urcity Hospodin , a aby J chtél bych byt vice lozisko dale
ucenost az k doprovazet tebe do éetba tvuj slovo , Bible
22. Aby tebe chtél bych nechranény probuh tak, Ze JA chtél
bych byt schopny az k jasné vidét a pochopit -li tam is jeden
Celek Klam kolem Duchovni namét , jak? aZ k dovidat se
tato prechodny ( ¢i tezaury prihoda ) dle jeden Biblicky
perspektiva , a aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne moudrost aZ
k vRdRt a tak, Ze JA ville dostat instrukce jak? poslouzit
jidlem ma druh a Amor sam ( pribuzni ) ne byt Cast of it.
23. Aby tebe chtél bych pojistit aby druhdy probth ar
nechranény a ma mysl dovidat se Clen urcity duchovni
vyznam of béh prthoda dobyti bydlisté do Clen uréity svét ,
aby tebe chtél bych chystat se ma srdce az k pfijmout tvuj
pravda , a aby tebe chtél bych pomoci mne dovidat se jak?
az k nalez kuraz a sila docela tvij Svaty Slovo , Elen uréity
Bible. Jménem koho Jezuita Kristus , JA tazat se na tezaury
majetek bifmovat m4 porucit aZ k byt doma souhlas tviij
vule , a JA am ptané se do tvijj moudrost a az k mit jeden
laska ke komu Elen urcity Pravda Amen
Vice v €len urcity Dno of Blok
Jak? az k mit Nekoneény Duch
My ar rad -li tato barevny pruh of modlitba dotaz aZ k Buh
is schopny az k pomahat tebe. My dovidat se tato moci ne
byt Clen urcity nejlépe Ci nejéetnéjsi efektivni desifrovani.
My dovidat se tamhleten ar mnoho neobvykly cesty of
interpretace domnéni a slova. -li tebe mit jeden navrh do
jeden lépe deSifrovani , Ci -li tebe chtél bych do téZe miry az
k brat jeden maly Cinit of ἐν} Cas aZ k poslat navrhy δζ k us
, tebe vule byt porce jidla tisic of druhy lid rovnéZ , kdo ville
nékdy Cist Clen urcity opravit desifrovani. My Casto mit
jeden Novy Posledni vule piistupny do tvuj jazyk ¢i do
jazyk aby ar nedovareny ¢i davny. -li tebe ar hledét do jeden
Novy Posledni vile do jeden specificky jazyk , byt prijemny
psat az k us. Rovnéz , my potfeba az k jisté a namahat az k
byt ve styku aby nékdy , my Cinit nabidka blok aby ar ne
Drzy a aby Cinit cena penize.
Aby ne -li tebe délostielectvo pritok néjaky of those
elektronicky blok , my pocinovat €asto Cinit neuré. €len
burza of elektronicky blok do pomoci 5 deSifrovant ¢i
desifrovani prace. Tebe Cinit ne mit az k byt jeden odborny
déInik , ale jeden pofadny osoba kdo is obchod do porce
jidla. Tebe poZadovat mit jeden pocitaé ci tebe pozadovat
mit pristup az k jeden poéitaé v tvij lokalka knihovna ¢i
akademie ¢i univerzita , od té doby those obvykly mit lépe
klientela az k €len ur¢ity internovana osoba. Tebe pocinovat
rovnéz obvykly upevnit ἐνῇ] drahy osobni DRZY
elektronicka poSta téet do existujici az k mail.yahoo.com
Byt prfjemny brat jeden dileZitost aZ k nalez len urcity
elektronicka poSta adresovat nalézt v Clen urcity dno ¢i Clen
urcity cil of tato blok. My nadéje tebe vile poslat
elektronicka poSta az k us , -li tato is of pomoci ¢i podpora.
My rovnéz dodat mysli tebe az k dotyk us pokud jde o
Elektronicky Blok aby my nabidka aby ar bez cena, a drzy.
My init mit mnoho blok do cizi jazyk , aby ne my Cinit
nékdy bydliSté je az k dostat electronically ( zavadént )
ponévadz my ale délat pristupny Clen ur¢éity blok ¢i Clen
urcity namét aby ar Clen urcity nejéetnéjsi dotaz. My dodat
mysli tebe aZ k stale byt modlit az k Buh a aZ k stale byt
dostat instrukce kolem Jemu do éetba Novy zakon. My vitat
tvuj otazky a poznamky do elektronicka poSta.
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Drogi Βόρ, Dziekuje 6w ten Nowy Testament
ma byt zwolniony byle tylko jestesmy able wobec nauczy¢
816 liczniejszy okoto ty. Prosze mi poméc ludzie
odpowiedzialny pod katem wykonaniem ten Elektroniczny
ksiazka rozporzadzalny.
Prosz¢ mi pomoc im zosta¢é wyptacalny praca umocowany ,
i zrobi¢ liczniejszy Elektroniczny ksiazki rozporzadzalny
Prosze mi poméc im wobec mie¢ wszystko ten zasoby , ten
pieniadze , ten 5118 i ten czas 6w oni potrzebowa¢ w klasa
zostaé wyptacalny utrzymywa¢ dziatanie pod katem Ty.
Prosz¢e mi poméc é6w όνν jestescie obowigzek od ten druzyna
Ow wspoipracownik im u an codzienny podstawa.
Podobaé sie dawac im ten sita wobec kontynuowa€¢ i dawac
kazdy od im ten duchowy zgoda pod katem ten praca éw ty
potrzeba im wobec czyni¢. Prosze mi poméc kazdy od im
wobec nie miec¢ strach i wobec zapamietac 6w jestes ten
Bog ktéry odpowiedzi modlitwa i ktory jest w koszt od
wszystko. JA btagac¢ éw ty bytby zachecaé im , i éw ty
ochrania¢ im , i ten praca & ministerstwo 6w oni 88 zajety.
JA btaga¢ 6w ty bytby ochraniac im z ten Duchowy Sity
zbrojne albo inny przeszkody 6w kulisy szkoda im albo
powolny im w dot. Prosze mi poméc podezas JA uzywaé
ten Nowy Testament wobec takze pomysle¢ od ludzie ktory
mie¢ wykonane ten wydanie rozporzadzalny , byle tylko JA
puszka metalowa modli¢ si¢ za im i tak oni puszka
metalowa robi¢ w dalszym ciagu wspdotpracownik
liczniejszy spoteczenstwo JA blagac éw ty bytby dawaé mi
pewien mitogé od tw6j Swiety Wyraz ( ten Nowy Testament
), 1 ow ty bytby dawac mi duchowy madros¢ i orientacja
wobec zna¢ ty polepszy¢ i wobec rozumieé ten okres 6w
jestesmy zyjacy w. Prosze mi poméc wobec Ζηδό jak wobec
zawierac Ζ transakcje ten trudnosci é6w JA jestem
skonfrontowany rezygnowaé codziennie.
Lord Bég , Wspotpracownik mi wobec potrzeba wobec znaé
ty Polepszy¢ i wobec potrzeba wobec wspétpracownik inny
Chrzescijanie w m6j powierzchnia i wokoto ten Swiat.
JA blaga¢ όν ty bytby dawa¢ ten Elektroniczny ksiazka
druzyna i 6w ktory praca od pajeczyny i όνν ktéry
wspotpracownik im tw6j madrosc¢. JA blagac éw ty bytby
wspotpracownik ten indywidualny cztonki od ich rodzina (i
m6j rodzina ) wobec nie byé duchowo zwodzit , oprécz
wobec rozumie¢ ty i ja wobec potrzeba wobec uznawac i
nastepowac po ty w na wszelki sposob. i JA zapytac ty
wobec czyni¢ tych rzeczy na Boga Jezus , Amen ,
ἃ δ ὰ ἃ Χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EEE EEEEEEKEEE
KEE Χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Slovenian PRYOQYa70T7
Slovenian - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God -
explained in Slovenian Language
Slovenian prayer jezuit Kristus molitev Bog kako prositi kako moci
Slisati svoj zaprositi podati ponuditi komu kaj mi
pri aparatu imeti se za boga , tvorec od vsemirje , bog :
1. to vi hoteti izrociti mi pogum prositi stvari to rabim
prositi
2. to vi hoteti izrociti mi pogum v vernik vi ter uvazevati
kakSen hoée8 vzdrZati svoj Zivljenje , namesto mi
navduSenje svoj lasten hoteti (namen ) zgoraj va8.
3. to vi hoteti izrociti mi ponuditi komu kaj ne pustiti svoj
grozen od neznano v postati opravicilo , ali osnova navzlic
ne streci you.
4. to vi hoteti izroéiti mi ponuditi komu kaj zagledati ter
zvedeti kako imeti bozji zakon ¢vrstost rabim ( skozi γα
izraziti z besedami biblija ) a ) zakaj pripetljaj spredaj ter b )
zakaj svoj lasten oseben netelesen potovanje.
5. to vi Bog hoteti izrociti mi ponuditi komu kaj biti brez
streCi vi vee
6. to vi hoteti spomniti se mi pogovarjati se vi prayerwhen )
jaz sem uni¢en ali v tezava , namesto tezaven odlo¢iti stvari
sebi Sele skozi svoj CloveSki ¢vrstost.
7. to vi hoteti izrociti mi modrost ter a sr¢ika poln Biblical
modrost tako da jaz hoteti zaéetni udarec z Zogo vi vec
razpoloZljiv.
8. to vi hoteti izrociti mi a zahteva Studirati vaS izraziti z
besedami , biblija , ( novi testament evangelij od John ),
naprej a oseben osnova
9. to vi hoteti izrociti pomoé mi tako da morem opaziti
stvari v biblija ( να izraziti z besedami ) kateri morem
osebno tikati se €esa , ter to zadostuje pomoé mi razumeti
kakSen vi biti brez mi uganjati v svoj Zivljenje.
10. to vi hoteti izrociti mi velik bistroumnost , v razumeti
kako razlagati drugim kdo vi ste , ter to jaz domiSljavec
zmozen zvedeti kako zvedeti ter znanje kako stati pokoncu
zakaj vi ter va8 izraziti z besedami ( biblija )
11. to vi hoteti privleci narod (ali websites ) v svoj Zivljenje
kdo biti brez znati vi , ter kdo ste krepek v svoj natanéen
razumeven od vi ( Bog ); ter to vi hoteti privle¢i narod (ali
websites ) v svoj Zivljenje kdo hoteti obstati zmozen v
podzigati mi v natanéen zvedeti kako razpreti biblija izraziti
z besedami od resnica (2 plaSljiv 215:).
12. to vi hoteti pomoé mi zvedeti imeti velik razumeven
priblizno kateri biblija prevod je najprimernejgi , kateri je
najve¢ natanéen , ter kateri has najve¢ netelesen €vrstost &
sila , ter kateri prevod strinjati se s samorasel rokopis to vi
vdihniti pisec od novi testament pisati.
13. to vi hoteti izroéiti ponuditi komu kaj mi rabiti svoj ¢as
Υ ἃ dober izuriti za hojo ali jeZo po cesti , ter ne v
razsipavati svoj Cas naprej napacen ali puhel metoda
zadobiti sklepnik v Bog ( €e Ze ne ste ne resni¢no Biblical ),
ter kraj oni metoda predelki ne dolg pogoj ali trajen
netelesen sadje.
14. to vi hoteti izrociti pomoé mi v razumeti kakSen iskati v
a cerkvica ali a mesto od €astiti , kakSen milosten od
vpraSanje zaprositi , ter to vi hoteti pomoé mi najti vernik ali
a pastor s velik netelesen modrost namesto neprisiljen ali
napacen odgovor.
15. to vi hoteti vzrok mi spomniti se nauCciti se na pamet vas
izraziti z besedami biblija ( kot na primer retoromanski 8),
tako da morem Zivljati to v svoj sr¢ika ter Zivljati svoj srce
pripravljen , ter obstati radovoljen podati odgovor drugim
od upanje to imam pribliZno vi.
16. to vi hoteti privleci ponuditi komu kaj mi tako da svoj
lasten teologija ter nauk ujemati se s va8 izraziti z besedami
, biblija ter to vi hoteti vzdrznost v pomoé mi znanje kako
svoj razumeven od nauk moéi obstati izpopolniti tako da
svoj lasten Zivljenje lifestyle ter razumeven vzdrZnost to live
at warefare with s.o. sklepnik eemu vi biti brez to v obstati
navzlic.
17. to vi hoteti plan svoj netelesen vpogled ( sklep ) bolj in
bolj , ter to kraj svoj razumeven ali zaznavanje od vi ni
natancen , to vi hoteti pomoé mi zvedeti kdo jezuit Kristus
resnicno je.
18. to vi hoteti izrociti ponuditi komu kaj mi tako da jaz
domiSljavec zmoZen razstati se poljuben napaéen cerkveni
obredi kateri imam odvisnost naprej , 5 vaS veder
poucevanje v biblija , ἔθ sploh kateri od kakSen jaz sem
sledeé ni od Bog , ali je nasprotno eemu kakSen ho¢eS uciti
nas priblizno sledeé vi.
19. to poljuben vojna sila od zlo hoteti ne odvzeti poljuben
netelesen razumeven kateri imam , Sele precej to jaz hoteti
obdrZati znanost od kako znati vi ter ne v obstati goljufati
dandanes od netelesen prevara.
20. to vi hoteti privleci netelesen €vrstost ter ponuditi komu
kaj mi tako da noéem v obstati del od velika gospoda
padanje stran ali od poljuben tok kateri domi8ljavec
netelesen ponarejen vam na uslugo ter v va8 svet izraziti z
besedami
21. to ἔθ je ni¢ to imam velja v svoj Zivljenje , ali vsekakor
to imam ne odgovor vam na uslugo kot jaz should Zivljati
ter to je preprecljiv mi s vsak izmed obeh peSaéenje z vami ,
ali imetje razumeven , to vi hoteti privle¢i oni stvari /
odgovor / pripetljaj prislon v svoj srce , tako da jaz hoteti
odre¢i se jih v imenu ljudstva, usmiljenja itd. jezuit Kristus ,
ter prav do svoj vrednostni papirji ter posledica , ter to vi
hoteti nadomestiti poljuben puhlost ,sadness ali obup v svoj
Zivljenje s veselje od bog , ter to jaz domi8ljavec vet ZariSée
naprej ucenje slediti vi z Citanje vaS izraziti z besedami ,
biblija
22. to vi hoteti plan svoj o¢i tako da jaz domiSljavec zmozen
v jasno zagledati ter pred sodi8¢em se pismeno obvezati ἔθ
je a velik prevara priblizno netelesen predmet , kako v
razumeti to fenomen ( ali od this pripetljaj ) 5 a Biblical
perspektiven , ter to vi hoteti izrociti mi modrost znati ter
tako da bom se uCil kako v pomoé svoj prijateljstvo ter
ljubezen sam sebe, sebi, se ( Zlahta ) ne obstati del od it.
23. to vi hoteti zavarovati to neko€ svoj οὔ! ste odpira€ ter
SVOj srce razumeti bozji zakon pomen od tok pripetljaj
taking mesto na svetu , to vi hoteti pripraviti se svoj srcika
vzeti vaS resnica , ter to vi hoteti pomoé mi razumeti kako
najti pogum ter évrstost skozi vaS svet izraziti z besedami ,
biblija. v imenu ljudstva, usmiljenja itd. jezuit Kristus , jaz
prositi od this stvari potrditi svoj zahteva v biti znotraj
pogodba va hoteti , ter vpraSam zakaj vaS modrost ter imeti
a ljubezen od resnica Amen.
γε pravzaprav od stran
kako imeti veten Zivljenje
mi smo vesel ἔξ to zapisati v seznam (od molitev prosnja v
Bog ) je zmozen pomagati vi. mi razumeti to maj ne obstati
najboljsi ali najveé uspeSen prevod. mi razumeti to so veliko
razli¢en ways od iztisljiv mnenje ter izraziti z besedami. Ce
vi Zivljati a nasvet zakaj a raj8i prevod , ali ἔθ vi hoteti vse
biti zavzeti a tesen znesek od va8 Cas poSiljati nasvet v nas ,
bos pomaganje tisoé od drugi narod tudi , kdo hoteti torej
Citanje izpopolniti prevod. mi pogosto Zivljati a nova zaveza
pri roki v va8 jezik ali v jezik to ste redek ali star. Ce isCeS a
nova zaveza v a poseben jezik , prosim napisati rabiti. tudi ,
mi biti brez v obstati varen ter zaéeti v biti obhajan to véasih
, mi delati oferirati knjiga to ste ne prost ter to delati stroSek
penez.
Sele Ce vi ne morem privoSs¢iti si nekaj tega oni elektronski
knjiga , mi moi pogosto delati mena od elektronski knjiga
zakaj pomoé s prevod ali prevod opus. vi nikar ne Zivljati to
live at warefare with s.o. a poklicen delavec , Sele a reden
oseba kdo je zavzet v pomaganje. vi should Zivljati a
racunalo ali vi should Zivljati postranski v a racunalo v va
tukajSnji knjiZnica ali viSja gimnazija ali univerza , odkar
oni navadno Zivljati rajSi vez v stazist v bolni8nici. vi ποι
tudi navadno ustanoviti vaS lasten oseben prost elektronski
verizna srajca racun z tekoé v mail.yahoo.com
prosim zalotiti a vaZnost za odkriti elektronski veriZzna srajca
ogovor poiskati pravzaprav ali prenehati od to stran. mi
upanje boS poslal elektronski verizZna srajca v nas , Ce to je
od pomo€ ali encouragement. mi tudi podZigati vi v zveza
nas zadeven elektronski knjiga to mi oferirati to ste ἔθ ne
stroSek , ter prost.
mi delati Zivljati veliko knjiga v tuji jeziki , Sele mi nikar ne
zmeraj mesto jih sprejeti electronically ( travnato gri¢evje )
zato ker mi Sele izdelovanje pri roki knjiga ali predmet to ste
najve¢ prosnja. mi podzigati vi v vzdrznost prositi v Bog ter
v vzdrznost zvedeti priblizno njega z Citanje novi testament.
mi izre¢i dobrodoSlico va8 vpraSanje ter razloZiti z
elektronski veriZna srajca.
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EE EERE
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὶ δὰ ἃ δὰ ἃ
srékan Bog , the same to to nova
zaveza has been izpust tako da mi smo
zmozen zvedeti vec priblizno vi. prosim pomoé preprosti
ljudje odgovoren zakaj izdelava to elektronski knjiga pri
roki.
prosim pomoé jih premo¢i opus nagel , ter izdelovanje vec
elektronski knjiga pri roki prosim pomoé jih imeti vsi
sredstvo , penez , évrstost ter ¢as to oni potreba zato da
obstati zmozen vzdrZevati ki dela zakaj vi.
prosim pomoé€ oni to ste del od skupina to pomoé jih naprej
vsakdanji osnova. prosim izro¢citi jih €vrstost v vzdrznost ter
izrociti vsakteri od jih bozji zakon razumeven zakaj opus to
vi biti brez jih uganjati. prosim pomoé vsakteri od jih v ne
Zivljati strah ter spomniti se to vi ste Bog kdo odgovor
molitev ter kdo je v ukaz od vse.
jaz predlagati da vi hoteti podZigati jih , ter to vi zavarovati
jih , ter opus & ministrstvo to oni so zaposlen s im. jaz
predlagati da vi hoteti zavarovati jih s netelesen vojna sila
ali drugi zapreka to strjena lava Skoda jih ali poéasi vozite
jih niz. prosim pomoé mi Cas jaz raba to nova zaveza v tudi
pretehtati od preprosti ljudje kdo Zivljati narejen to naklada
pri roki ,
tako da morem prositi za jih ter tudi oni mo¢i vzdrznost v
pomoé ve¢ narod jaz predlagati da vi hoteti izrociti mi a
ljubezen od να svet izraziti z besedami ( novi testament ),
ter to vi hoteti izroéiti mi netelesen modrost ter bistroumnost
znati vi rajsi ter v razumeti epoha od €as to mi smo Zivljenje
v.
prosim pomoé mi znati kako v obravnavati teZek to jaz sem
soociti s vsak dan. lord Bog , pomoé mi hoteti znanje vi γα] δ!
ter hoteti pomoé drugi krSéanski v svoj area ter po svetu.
jaz predlagati da vi hoteti izrociti elektronski knjiga skupina
ter oni kdo opus naprej tkalec ter oni kdo pomoé jih vas
modrost. jaz predlagati da vi hoteti pomoé poedinec
€lanstvo od svoj rodbina ( ter svoj rodbina ) v ne obstati
netelesen goljufati , Sele v razumeti vi ter hoteti uvazevati
ter slediti vi v sleherni izuriti za hojo ali jeZo po cesti. ter jaz
zaprositi Vi uganjati od this stvari v imenu ljudstva,
usmiljenja itd. jezuit , Amen ,
KEE δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ Χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
mahal diyos 9 pasalamatan ka atipan ng pawid ito
bago testamento may been pakawalan pagayon atipan ng
pawid tayo ay able sa mag-aral laling marami buongpaligid
ka. masiyahan tumulong ang mga tao may pananagutan
dahil sa making ito Electronic book makukuha. masiyahan
tumulong kanila sa maaari able sa gumawa ayuno , at gawin
laling marami Electronic books makukuha masiyahan
tumulong kanila sa may lahat ang mapamaraan , ang salapi ,
ang lakas at ang takdaan ng oras atipan ng pawid sila
mangilangan di iutos sa maaari able sa tago gumawa dahil
sa ka.
masiyahan tumulong those atipan ng pawid ay mahati ng
ang itambal atipan ng pawid tumulong kanila sa isa pang-
araw-araw batayan. masiyahan bigyan kanila ang lakas sa
mapatuloy at bigyan bawa't isa ng kanila ang tangayin pang-
unawa dahil sa ang gumawa atipan ng pawid ka magkulang
kanila sa gumawa. masiyahan tumulong bawa't isa ng kanila
sa hindi may katakutan at sa gunitain atipan ng pawid ka ay
ang diyos sino sumagot dasal at sino ay di pagbintangan ng
lahat ng bagay.
ako magdasal atipan ng pawid ka would palakasin ang loob
kanila , at atipan ng pawid ka ipagsanggalang kanila , at ang
gumawa & magkalinga atipan ng pawid sila ay kumuha di.
ako magdasal atipan ng pawid ka would ipagsanggalang
kanila sa ang tangayin pilitin o iba sagwil atipan ng pawid
could saktan kanila o slow kanila itumba.
masiyahan tumulong ako kailan ako gumamit ito bago
testamento sa din isipin ng ang mga tao sino may made ito
edisyon makukuha , pagayon atipan ng pawid ako maaari
magdasal dahil sa kanila at pagayon sila maaari mapatuloy
sa tumulong laling marami mga tao ako magdasal atipan ng
pawid ka would bigyan ako a ibigin ng mo banal salita ( ang
bago testamento ), at atipan ng pawid ka would bigyan ako
tangayin dunong at discernment sa malaman ka lalong
mapabuti at sa maintindihan ang tukdok ng takdaan ng oras
atipan ng pawid tayo ay ikinabubuhay di.
masiyahan tumulong ako sa malaman paano sa makitungo
kumuha ang mahirap hindi madali atipan ng pawid ako ay
confronted kumuha bawa't araw. panginoon diyos ,
tumulong ako sa magkulang sa malaman ka lalong mapabuti
at sa magkulang sa tumulong iba binyagan di akin malawak
at sa tabi-tabi ang daigdig. ako magdasal atipan ng pawid ka
would bigyan ang Electronic book itambal at those sino
gumawa sa ang website at those sino tumulong kanila mo
dunong.
ako magdasal atipan ng pawid ka would tumulong ang isang
tao pagkakasapi ng kanila mag-anak ( at akin mag-anak ) sa
hindi maaari spiritually dayain , datapuwa't sa maintindihan
ka at sa magkulang sa tanggapin at sundan ka di bawa't
daan. at ako humingi ka sa gumawa tesis bagay di ang
pangalanan ng heswita , susugan ,
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ KEEEKEEE
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὰ
Armas Jumala , Kiittaa te etta nyt kuluva
Veres Jalkisdad6s has esittémislupa joten etta me
aari eteva jotta kuulla enemméan jokseenkin te.
Haluta auttaa ihmiset edesvastuullinen ajaksi ansaitseva nyt
kuluva Elektroninen kirjanpidollinen saatavana. Haluta
auttaa heidat jotta olla eteva jotta aikaansaada paastota , ja
ehtia enemman Elektroninen luettelossa saatavana Haluta
auttaa heidat jotta hankkia aivan varat , raha , kesto ja aika
ettaé he kaivata kotona aste jotta olla eteva jotta elatus
tydskentely ajaksi Te.
Haluta auttaa ne etta aari erité -lta joukkue etta auttaa heidat
model after by jokapaivainen kivijalka. Haluta kimmoisuus
heidat kesto jotta jatkaa ja kimmoisuus joka -lta heidat
henki- ymméartavadinen ajaksi aikaansaada etta te haluta
heidat jotta ajaa.
Haluta auttaa joka -Ita heidét jotta ei hankkia pelata ja jotta
muistaa etta te aari Jumala joka tottelee nimea hartaushetki
ja joka on kotona hinta -lta kaikki. I-KIRJAIN pyytaa
hartaasti etté te edistaéa heidat , ja ett te suojata heidat , ja
aikaansaada & ministerikausi etté he aari varattu kotona. I-
KIRJAIN pyytéa hartaasti etta te suojata heidat polveutua
Henki- Joukko eli toinen este etté haitta heidiat eli hitaasti
heidat ποι. Haluta auttaa we jahka I-KIRJAIN apu nyt
kuluva Veres Jalkisaad6s jotta kin ajatella -lta ihmiset joka
hankkia kokoonpantu nyt kuluva painos saatavana , joten
ettaé I-KIRJAIN kanisteri pyytaa hartaasti ajaksi heidat ja
joten he kanisteri jatkaa jotta auttaa enemmiain ihmiset I-
KIRJAIN pyytaa hartaasti etté te kimmoisuus we lempia -lta
sinun Pyha Sana ( Veres Jalkisaadés ), ja ettaé te kimmoisuus
ja jotta kasittaa aika -lta aika etté me aari asuen kotona.
Haluta auttaa we jotta osata kuinka jotta antaa avulla
hankala οἰ I-KIRJAIN olen asettaa vastakkain avulla joka
aika. Haltija Jumala , Auttaa we jotta haluta jotta osata te
Vedonly6ja ja jotta haluta jotta auttaa toinen Kristitty kotona
minun kohta ja liepeilla maailma.
I-KIRJAIN pyytaa hartaasti etta te kimmoisuus Elektroninen
kirjanpidollinen joukkue ja ne joka aikaansaada model after
kudos ja ne joka auttaa heidat sinun viisaus. I-KIRJAIN
pyytaa hartaasti etta te auttaa yksil6 jasenmaara -lta heidiin
heimo ( ja minun heimo ) jotta ei olla henkisesti eksyttaa ,
ainoastaan jotta kasittaa te ja jotta haluta jotta hyvaksya ja
harjoittaa te kotona joka elaéméntapa. ja I-KIRJAIN anoa te
jotta ajaa nama tavarat kotona maine -Ita Jeesus ,
Vastuunalainen ,
KK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χ ὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ὦ
Raring Gud , Tack sjalv sa pass den har Ny
Testamente er blitt befriaren sa fakta at vi er
duglig till lara sig mer omkring du. Behag hjalpa mig
folk ansvarig for tillverkningen den har Elektronisk bok
tillganglig.
Behag hjalpa mig dem till vara Κῦρε duktig verk fort , och
géra mer Elektronisk bokna tillganglig Behag hjalpa mig
dem till har alla resurserna , pengarna , den styrka och tiden
sa pass de behov for att kunde halla arbetande till deras.
Behag hjalpa mig den har sa pass de/vi/du/ni ar del om
spannen sa pass hjalp dem pa en daglig basis. Behaga ger
dem den styrka till fortsatta och ger var av dem den ande
férstandet for den verk sa pass du vilja dem till gor. Behag
hjalpa mig var av dem till inte har radsla och till minas sa
pass du er den Gud vem svar bén och vem er han i lidelse av
allting.
JAG be sa pass du skulle uppmuntra dem , och sa pass du
skydda dem , och den verk & ministéren sa pass de er
forlovad i.
JAG be sa pass du skulle skydda dem fran den Ande Pressar
eller annan hinder sa pass kunde skada dem eller langsam
dem ned. Behag hjaélpa mig nar JAG anvanda den har Ny
Testamente till ocksa ténka om folk vem har gjord den har
upplagan tillganglig , sa fakta at JAG kanna be for dem och
sa de kanna fortsitta till hjalp mer folk JAG be sa pass du
skulle ge mig en karlek om din Helig Uttrycka ( den Ny
Testamente ), och sa pass du skulle ge mig ande visdom och
discernment till veta du bittre och till f6rsta den period av
tid sa pass vi er levande i.
Behag hjalpa mig till veta hur till ha att g6ra med
svarigheten sa pass JAG er stillt 6verf6r var dag. Var Herre
och Fralsare Gud , Hjaélpa mig till vilja till veta du Battre
och till vilja till hjalp annan Kristen i min areal och i
omkrets det varld. JAG be sa pass du skulle ger den
Elektronisk bok sla sig ihop och den har vem arbeta pa den
spindelvav och den har vem hjalp dem din visdom.
JAG be sa pass du skulle hjalp individuellt medlemmen av
deras familj ( och min familj ) till inte bli spiritually lurat ,
utom till forsta du och mig till vilja till accept och félja du i
varje vag. och JAG fraga du till g6r de har sakerna inne om
namn av Jesus , Samarbetsvillig ,
KKK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὶ δὰ ἃ δὰ ἃ
Allerkzerest God , Tak for lan at indeveerende Ny
Testamente er blevet Igst i den grad at vi er kan hen til lere
flere omkring jer. Behage hjelp den folk ansvarlig nemlig
ger indeverende Elektronisk skrift anvendelig. Behage
hjelp sig at blive kgbedygtig arbejde holdbar , og skabe
flere Elektronisk bgger anvendelig Behage hjelp sig hen til
nyde en hel ressourcer , den penge , den krefter og den gang
at de savn for at vere i stand til opbevare i orden nemlig Jer.
Behage hjelp dem at er noget af den hold at hjzlp sig oven
pa en hverdags holdepunkt. Behage indrgmme sig den
krefter hen til fortszette og indrémme hver i sig den appel
opfattelse nemlig den arbejde at jer savn sig hen til lave.
Behage hjelp hver i sig hen til ikke nyde skrak og hen til
huske at du er den God hvem svar bgn og hvem star for
arrangementet i alt.
JEG bed at jer ville give mod sig , og at jer sikre sig , og
den arbejde & ministerium at de er forlovet i. JEG bed at jer
ville sikre sig af den Appel Tvinger eller anden hindring at
kunne afbrek sig eller sen sig nede.
Behage hjelp mig hvor JEG hjelp indeverende Ny
Testamente hen til ligeledes hitte pa den folk hvem nyde
skabt indeveerende oplag anvendelig , i den grad at JEG
kunne bed nemlig sig hvorfor de kunne fortsztte hen til
hjelp flere folk JEG bed at jer ville indrémme mig en
kerlighed til jeres Hellig Ord (den Ny Testamente ), og at
jer ville indrgmme mig appel klogskab og discernment hen
til kende jer bedre og hen til opfatte den periode at vi er
nulevende i.
Behage hjzlp mig hen til kende hvor hen til omhandle den
problemer at Jeg er stillet over for hver dag. Lord God ,
Hjzlp mig hen til ville gerne kende jer Bedre og hen til ville
gerne hjelp anden Christians i mig omrade og omkring den
jord.
JEG bed at jer ville indrgmme den Elektronisk skrift hold og
dem hvem arbejde med den website og dem hvem hjelp sig
jeres klogskab. JEG bed at jer ville hjzelp den individ
medlemmer i deres slegt ( og mig slegt ) hen til ikke vere
spiritually narrede , men hen til opfatte jer og hen til ville
gerne optage og komme efter jer i al mulig made. og JEG
opfordre jer hen til lave disse sager i den benevne i Jesus ,
Amen ,
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Mo.snutesa K Gory ΠΟΡΟΓΟΗ͂ bor, Bai 4To ὕβι πη
BbIIMYW{CHbI 370 Gospel ἩΠῊ 3ΤῸΤ HOBEIM testament Tak,
ἯΤΟ MBI OyAeM BbIYYHTE Combe Ο Bac. [lomamyiicta
TIOMOTHTE JIKOJAM OTBCTCTBCHHBIM [UIA JeaTb 3Ty
3ICKTPOHHY!O ΚΗΗ͂ΓΥ HMerouelca. Bhi 3HaeTe OHH Ἡ ΒΡΙ
ΜΟΣΚΘΤΘ TOMOUb UM. [lowkanyHcTta MOMOrHTe HM MOUb
padotatTs OBICTpo, H ὁπ πα τα Oosee 37eKTPOHHEIC KHHTH
wMmeromelica [louwamyvcta NOMOrMTe HM HMETb BCE
PeCyPCbI, JCHEr, MPOUHOCTh H BPCMA KOTOPbIc OHH ΠΠῚ TOTO
YyTOObI MOUb ZepKaTb padotatTs Aya Bac. [oxanyiicta
TIOMOTHTe TeM Oy YT 4YACTbIO KOMAHABI NOMOracT HM Ha
e7keqHeBHOe OCHOBaHHe. Tloxanyiicta Jalire HM MpOuHOCTh
ALI TOTO YTOObI ΠΡΟΠΟΠΊΚΑΤΡ Ἡ WaBaTb KAXKTOMY Η3 HX
AYXOBHOC BHUKAHHEe ΠΠῚ paOOTbI ΤῸ BbI XOTHTC HX
coenaTb. Toxamyicta MOMOTHTe KaxKOMY 43 HX He HMCTb
cTpax H He BCIOMHHAaTb 4TO BbI OyZeTe OOTOM OTBCUAIOT
MosmtTse x in charge of Bce. 5 MOTO 4TO BEI OOOAPHIH HX,
Ἡ 4TO ΒΡΙ 32 ΠΉΠΙΆΘΤΟ HX, H padota & MHHHCTeEPCTBO 4TO
OHH BKJIKOUCHEI BHYTPH.
A MOJO TO BbI ΞΔΙΠΗΤΗΠΗ͂ HX OT TYXOBHBIX YCHIMH WM
UpPyTHX ΠΡΒΠΟῊ ΟΜΟΓΠῊ NOBPeCAHTb WM HIM 3aMeAIHTb HM
BHH3. [lomwamyiicra NOMOrHTe MHE KOra A HCIONb3YIO 3TOT
HOBBIHi testament ΤΆ ΚΘ Ad TOTO UTOObI AYMaTb IroOeH
ela 3TOT BAapHaHT MMerOLICHCA, Tak, ἯΤΟ A CMOTY
TIOMOJHTb 1d HX HW OSTOMY HX CMOTHTe ΠΡΟΠΟΠΊΚΔΤΕ
TIOMOYb ΟΠ TOC.
‘A MOJIEO YTO BbI ΠΆΠΗ MHC ΒΙΕΟΟΠΘΗΗΟΟΤΡ Ballero
cBaTeHuiero cosa (Hopbiiia 3aBeT), H 4TO BbI ΠΏΠΗ MHE
AYXOBHBIC IPCMyAPOCTb H pacnosHaHHe ANIA TOTO 4YTOOBI
3HATb Bac OosIce IV4LIe Ἡ NOHATS ΠΟΡΗΟΠΟ BpeMecHH
KOTOPOM MBI 2kHBeM B. Iloxamyiicta MOMOrHTe MHe CyMeTb
Kak OOWATECA C 3ATPYHCHHAMH 4TO 41 confronted ὁ
Ka@KIbIM ΠΗΘΜ. Jlopaz bor, ΠΟΜΟΓΆΘΤ ΜῊ XOTeETb 3HaTb Bac
Oonee Iy4LIe Ἡ XOTCTb MOMOUb APYIHM XPHCTHAHKaM B
MoeH OO2aCTH ἢ BOKpyr Mupa.
Al MOJIEO YTO BBI Was SICKTPpOHHYIO KOMAHY Ἡ Te KHHTH
TIOMOTatOT HM Balla ΠΡΟΜΥΠΡΟΟΤΡ. A MOJO YTO BbI
ΠΟΜΟΓΠΗ͂ ΜΗΠΗΒΗΠΥΆΠΒΗΡΙΜ WieHaM HX CeMbH (ἢ ΜΟΘΗ͂
C€MBbH) ΠΥΧΟΒΗΟΟΤ ObITb OOMAHYTBIM, HO TIOHAT BAC Η
XOTCTb MIPHHATh H MOCMCAOBATb 3a BAC B KaxKAO ΠΟΡΟΓΘ.
Tatoxe Jalire HaM ΚΟΜΦΟΡΤ H HaBeCHHE B 3TH BPeMCHA H 1
CIpalliuBaeM, 4TO BbI AeaeTe 3TH Bem in the name of
CBIHOK Oora, jesus christ, aMHHB,
KEE KEE EE KE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EE ἃ χὰ ἃ Χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
KEE KEE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χὰ ἃ Χὰ ἃ Χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Apar bor , baarogaps TH ΤΟ3Η TO3H Hos
3aBemanue has p.p. or be ocBo60%*.4aBaM TaKa
TO3H HHe cTe cnocodeH KbM y4a ce NoBede
ΗΔΟΚΌΜΠΟ TH. XapecBamM MoMaraM onpevenMTeeH Wien
xXOpa OTTOBOpeH 3a NpHroTBsAHe TO3H Electronic kHura
ἨΔΠΗΊΘΗ.
XapecBaM NOMaraM TAX KbM Oba ΟΠΟΟΟΟΘῊ KbM padoTa
TIOCTA , HW WpaBa noBeye Electronic ΚΗ ΚΩΡΗΜΠΙΩ ἨΔ ΠΗΉΊΘΗ
XapecBaM TlOMaraM TAX KbM HMaM ΠΗ ΟΠΡΟΠΘΠΗΤΘΠΘΗ
WICH CpeCACTBO , ΟΠΡΟΙΘΠΗΤΘΠΘῊ “WICH Tapy ,
ONPCACIHTeICH UICH YCTOMIMBOCT H ΟΠΡΟΠΘΠΗΤΘΠΘΗ WWeH
BpeMe TO3H Te HYKa in pey KbM Oba σποοοῦβθη KbM
TbppxKa ΠΒΗΚΘΗΗΘ 3a ΤῊ. XapecBam nomaram or that To3v
CTe 4ACT Ha ONpeACMHTeICH WIeH ΒΠΡΗΓ TO3H MOMATaM TAX
Ha an BCCKHJHeBCH 6a3a.
XapecBaM JaBaM TAX OMpeAeCIMTeICH WIeH YCTOMUMBOCT
KbM TIPOAbIDKABaM HW ΠΆΒΩΜ BCCKH Ha TAX ΟΠΡΟΠΘΠΗΤΘΠΘΗ
WICH JVXOBCH CXBalllaHe 3a ΟΠΡΟΠΘΠΗΤΘΠΘῊ wIeH padota
TO3H TH JIMIICa TAX KbM TIpaBa.
XapecBaM NlOMaraM BCCKH Ha TAX KbM ΗΘ HMaM CTpax H KbM
TIOMHA TO3H TH CTe ΟΠΡΟΠΘΠΗΤΘΠΘῊ unten bor Ko OTTOBOp
MOJIMTBA H KOH 6 in IH Ha BCHYKO. A3 MONA TO3H TH YK
HaCbpuaBaM TAX , H TO3H TH ΞΔΠΙΗΤΆΒΩΜ TAX , H
ΟΠΡΘΟΠΘΠΗΤΘΠΘῊ ueH pa6ota ὅς MHHHMCTeEPCTBO TO3H Te CTE
3a7bDKAaBaM in. A3 MOT TO3H TH YK ΞΔΙΠΗΤΩΒΩΜ TAX OT
ompezemutTenen unten ΠΎΧΟΒΘΗ Cua wim Apyr npeska ΤΟΞΗ
p.t. of can Bpega TAX ἩΠῊ OaBeH TAX TOMO ΒΡΞΒΗΠΙΘΗΒΘ.
XapecBaM nloMaramM me Kora A3 ynotpeda To3Hu Hos
ΞϑΆΒΟΠΙΔΗΗΘ KbM CbINO MHCILI Ha ΟΠΡΟΠΘΠΗΤΘΊΘΗ WIcH xopa
KOH HMaM p.t. H p.p. or make To3H H32aHHe HaH4eH , Taka
To3H A3 Mora MOJA 3a TAX Ηὶ Taka Te MOTa TIPOAbIDKAaBaM
KbM TlOMaraM ToBeye xopa A3 MOI TO3H TH YK JaBaM me
a ΠΙΟῦΟΒ Ha your Csat JIyma ( onpezemutemeH unten Hos
3SaBellaHue ), H TO3H TH YK JaBaM me ΠΥΧΟΒΘῊ MBAPOCT u
pa3iM4aBaHe KbM 3Has TH ΠΟ- ΠΟΟΒΡ H KbM pa30upaM
ONpPeACIHTeICH “ICH NepHoOd Ha BPeMe TO3H He CTe 2KHB
in. XapecBaM NOMaraM Me KbM 3Had KaK KM pa3yqaBaM C
Ope AeMHTeIeH WIeH MBUCH TO3H A3 CbM H3IIpaBAM Mmper c
BCCKH JICH.
Jlopy bor , lomaramM me kbM jMMca KbM 3Had TH Ilo-200Bp
Ἡ KbM JIMMICa KbM NOMaraM Apyr XpHCTHAHCKH in my ΠΠΟΠῚ
Ἡ HaOKOJIO ΟΠΡΘΠΘΠΉΤΘΠΘΗ WICH CBAT.
A3 μοπῇ TO3H TH YK JaBaM onpezemuTeneH ἼΠΘῊ Electronic
KHuTa ΒΠΡΉΓ u oT that KOM paOoTa Ha ONpeyeCMHTeICH WIeH
website ἢ or that Koi MoMaramM Tax your Mbgzpoct. A3 moma
TO3H TH WK MOMATaM ΟΠΡΟΠΘΠΉΤΘΠΘῊ WICH JIM4CH WJICHCTBO
Ha TeXeH CeMeHCTBO ( H my CeMeHCTBO ) KbM He Oba
YXOBCH H3MaMBaM , HO KbM pa30HpaM TH ἢ KbM JIMTICa KbM
TIpHeMaM H ΟΠΘΠΒΩΜ TH in BCeKH ΠΈΤ. Η A3 ΠΗΤΩΜ TH KbM
pas Te3H HEIMO in onpeyeMHTeNeH ἩΠΘῊ uMe Ha Vesyut ,
Amen ,
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὶ δὶ ἃ δὰ ἃ
sevgili mabut , eyvallah 86]. su bu Incil bkz.
have be serbest birakmak tak: biz are giiclii -e dogru
6grenmek daha hakkinda sen. mutlu etmek yardim etmek
belgili tanimlik insanlar -den sorumlu icin yapim bu
elektronik kitap elde edilebilir. mutlu etmek yardim etmek
onlan -e dogru muktedir is hizli , ve yapmak daha elektronik
kitap elde edilebilir mutlu etmek yardim etmek onlar -e
dogru -si olmak tiim belgili tanimlik kaynak , belgili
tanimlik para , belgili tanimlik οἷς ve belgili tammlk zaman
adl.
su onlar liizum igin muktedir almak galisma igin sen. mutlu
etmek yardim etmek o adl. su are béliim -in belgili tanmlhk
takim adl. su yardim etmek onlart tistiinde an her temel.
mutlu etmek vermek onlart belgili tanimlik giig¢ -e dogru
devam etmek ve vermek her -in onlari belgili tanimlik
ruhani basiret igin belgili tanimlik is Δ].
gu sen istemek onlari -e dogru yapmak. mutlu etmek yardim
etmek her -in onlari -e dogru 461] -si olmak korkmak ve -e
dogru animsamak adl. su sen are belgili tanmmlik mabut kim
yanit dua ve kim bkz. be iginde fiyat istemek -in her sey. I
dua etmek 86]. su sen -cekti yiireklendirmek onlan , ve 86].
su sen korumak onlari , ve belgili tanimlik ig & bakanlik 86].
su onlar are mesgul i¢ginde. I dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti
korumak onlari --dan belgili tanimlik ruhani gii¢ ya da diger
engel adl.
su -ebil zarar onlari ya da yavas onlari asag1. mutlu etmek
yardim etmek beni ne zaman I kullanma bu Incil -e dogru da
diisiin belgili tanimlik insanlar kim -si olmak -den yapilmis
bu bask: elde edilebilir , taki I -ebilmek dua etmek icin
onlar vesaire onlar -ebilmek devam etmek -e dogru yardim
etmek daha insanlar I dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti vermek
beni a ask -in senin kutsal kelime ( belgili tammlik Incil ),
ve adl. su sen -cekti vermek beni ruhani akillilik ve
discernment -e dogru bilmek sen daha iyi ve -e dogru
anlamak belgili tanimlik déndiirmemem adl. su biz are canhi
iginde. mutlu etmek yardim etmek beni -e dogru bilmek
nasil -e dogru dagitmak ile belgili tanimlik miiskiilat ad].
su I am karsi koymak ile her giin. efendi mabut , yardim
etmek beni -e dogru istemek -e dogru bilmek sen daha iyi ve
-e dogru istemek -e dogru yardim etmek diger Hristiyan
iginde benim alan ve cevrede belgili tanimlik diinya. I dua
etmek adl. su sen -cekti vermek belgili tanmlik elektronik
kitap takim ve o kim is iistiinde belgili tanimlik website ve o
kim yardim etmek onlar senin akilllik.
I dua etmek ad]. su sen -cekti yardim etmek belgili tanimlik
bireysel aza -in onlarin aile ( ve benim aile ) -e dogru degil
var olmak ruhani aldatmak , ama -e dofru anlamak sen ve -e
dogru istemek -e dogru almak ve izlemek sen iginde her yol.
ve I sormak sen -e dogru yapmak bunlar esya adina Isa ,
amin ,
KEE KEE ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
ἃ δ ἃ ἃ Χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
sevgili mabut , eyvallah adl. su bu Incil bkz. have be serbest
birakmak taki biz are οἷς -e dogru 6grenmek daha
hakkinda sen. mutlu etmek yardim etmek belgili tanimlik
insanlar -den sorumlu i¢gin yapim bu elektronik kitap elde
edilebilir. mutlu etmek yardim etmek onlari -e dogru
muktedir is hizli , ve yapmak daha elektronik kitap elde
edilebilir mutlu etmek yardim etmek onlari -e dogru -si
olmak tiim belgili tanimlik kaynak , belgili tanimlik para ,
belgili tanimlik gii¢ ve belgili tanimlik zaman adl.
su onlar liizum igin muktedir almak galisma igin sen. mutlu
etmek yardim etmek ο adl. su are bdliim -in belgili tanmmlik
takim adl. su yardim etmek onlart tistiinde an her temel.
mutlu etmek vermek onlari belgili tanimlik giig¢ -e dogru
devam etmek ve vermek her -in onlari belgili tanimlik
ruhani basiret igin belgili tanimlik is adl.
gu sen istemek onlari -e dogru yapmak. mutlu etmek yardim
etmek her -in onlari -e dogru 461] -si olmak korkmak ve -e
dogru animsamak adl. su sen are belgili tanmmlik mabut kim
yanit dua ve kim bkz. be iginde fiyat istemek -in her sey. I
dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti yiireklendirmek onlari , ve adl.
su sen korumak onlar1 , ve belgili tanimlik ig & bakanlik 86].
su onlar are mesgul i¢inde. I dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti
korumak onlari --dan belgili tanimlik ruhani gii¢ ya da diger
engel adl.
su -ebil zarar onlari ya da yavas onlari asagi. mutlu etmek
yardim etmek beni ne zaman I kullanma bu Incil -e dogru da
diisiin belgili tanimlik insanlar kim -si olmak -den yapilmis
bu baski elde edilebilir , taki I -ebilmek dua etmek icin
onlar vesaire onlar -ebilmek devam etmek -e dogru yardim
etmek daha insanlar I dua etmek 86]. su sen -cekti vermek
beni a ask -in senin kutsal kelime ( belgili tammmlik Incil ),
ve adl. su sen -cekti vermek beni ruhani akillilik ve
discernment -e dogru bilmek sen daha iyi ve -e dogru
anlamak belgili tanimlik déndiirmemem adl. su biz are canli
iginde. mutlu etmek yardim etmek beni -e dogru bilmek
nasil -e dogru dagitmak ile belgili tanimlik miiskiilat ad].
su I am karsi koymak ile her giin. efendi mabut , yardim
etmek beni -e dogru istemek -e dogru bilmek sen daha iyi ve
-e dogru istemek -e dogru yardim etmek diger Hristiyan
i¢inde benim alan ve cevrede belgili tanimlik diinya. I dua
etmek adl. su sen -cekti vermek belgili tantmlik elektronik
kitap takim ve o kim is iistiinde belgili tanimlik website ve o
kim yardim etmek onlar senin akilllik.
I dua etmek ad]. su sen -cekti yardim etmek belgili tanimlik
bireysel aza -in onlarin aile ( ve benim aile ) -e dogru degil
var olmak ruhani aldatmak , ama -e dofru anlamak sen ve -e
dogru istemek -e dogru almak ve izlemek sen iginde her yol.
ve I sormak sen -e dogru yapmak bunlar esya adina Isa ,
amin ,
KEE KEE KEEEEEK ἃ ἃ Χ ὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
KEE KE ἃ ἃ ὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ Χ ὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Serbia -- Servia - Serbian
Serbia Serbian Servian Prayer Isus Krist Molitva Bog Kako
Moliti moci cuti moj molitva za pitati davati ponuditi mene
otkriti duhovni Vodstvo
Serbia - Prayer Requests (praying ) to God - explained in
Serbian (servian) Language
Molitva za Bog ## Kako za Moliti za Bog
Kako Bog moci ¢uti moj molitva
Kako za pitati Bog za davati ponuditi mene
Kako otkriti duhovni Vodstvo
Kako za na¢i predaja iz urok Raspolozenje
Kako za zasluga odredeni Clan istinit Bog nad Nebo
Kako otkriti odredeni Clan HriS¢anin Bog
Kako za moliti za Bog droz Isus Krist
JA imati nikada molitva pre nego
Vazan za Bog
Bog Zeljan ljubavi svaki osoba osoba
Isus Krist moci pomoé
Se Bog Biti stalo moj Zivot
Molitva Trazenju
stvar taj te mo¢ oskudica za uzeti u obzir govorenje za Bog
okolo Molitva TraZenju kod te , okolo te
Govorenje za Bog , odredeni élan Kreator nad odredeni
€lan Svemir , odredeni lan Gospodar :
1. taj te davati za mene odredeni Clan hrabrost za moliti
odredeni Clan stvar taj JA potreba za moliti 2. taj te davati za
mene odredeni Clan hrabrost za verovati te pa primiti Sta te
oskudica raditi s moj Zivot , umjesto mene uznijeti moj
vlastiti volja (namera ) iznad vas.
3. taj te davati mene ponuditi ne career moj bojazan nad
odredeni Clan nepoznat za postati odredeni Clan isprika ,
inace odredeni Clan osnovica umjesto mene ne za sluZiti
you.
4. taj te davati mene ponuditi vidjeti pa uciti kako za imati
odredeni Clan duhovni sway JA potreba ( droz tvoj rije¢
Biblija ) jedan ) umjesto odredeni Clan dogadaj ispred pa P )
umjesto moj vlastiti crew duhovni putovanje.
5. Taj te Bog davati mene ponuditi oskudica za sluziti Te
briny
6. Taj te podsetiti mene za razgovarati sa te prayerwhen ) JA
sam frustriran inace u problemima , umjesto tezak za odluka
stvar ja sam jedini droz moj ljudsko bice sway.
7. Taj te davati mene Mudrost pa jedan srce ispunjen s
Biblijski Mudrost tako da JA sluziti te briny delotvorno.
8. Taj te davati mene jedan Zelja za uCenje tvoj γι], Biblija
, (odredeni Clan Novi Zavjet Evandelje nad Zahod ), na
temelju jedan crew osnovica 9. taj te davati pomo¢ za mene
tako da JA sam u mogucnosti za obaveStenje stvar unutra
Biblija ( tvoj rijeé ) Sta JA moci osobno vezati za , pa taj
volja pomoé mene shvatiti Sta te oskudica mene raditi unutra
moj Zivot.
10. Taj te davati mene velik raspoznavanje , za shvatiti kako
za objasniti za ostali tko te biti , pa taj JA mo¢i uciti kako
uciti pa knotkle kako za pristajati uza Sto te pa tvoj rijec (
Biblija )
11. Taj te donijeti narod ( inaée websites ) unutra moj Zivot
tko oskudica za knotkle te , pa tko biti jak unutra njihov
precizan sporazum nad te ( Bog ); pa Taj te donijeti narod (
inace websites ) unutra moj Zivot tko ¢e biti u moguénosti za
ohrabriti mene za toéno u€¢iti kako za podeliti Biblija reé nad
istina (2 Timotej 215:).
12. Taj te pomocé mene uCiti za imati velik sporazum okolo
Sta Biblija prikaz 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu najbolji , Sta
3. lice od TO BE u prezentu ve¢ina precizan , pa Sta je preko
duhovni sway & snaga , pa Sta prikaz sloZiti se s odredeni
€lan izvorni rukopis taj te nadahnut odredeni Clan autorstvo
nad odredeni Clan Novi Zavjet za pisati.
13. Taj te davati ponuditi mene za korist moj vrijeme unutra
jedan dobar put , pa ne za uzaludnost moj vrijeme na
temelju Neistinit ina¢e prazan metod za dobiti zaglavni
kamen za Bog ( ipak taj nisu vjerno Biblijski ), pa kuda tim
metod proizvod nijedan dug rok ina¢e trajan duhovni voce.
14. Taj te davati pomo¢ za mene za shvatiti Sta za traZiti
unutra jedan crkva ina¢ée jedan mjesto nad zasluga , Sta rod
nad sumnja za pitati , pa taj te pomoé mene za naci vernik
inace jedan parson 5 velik duhovni mudrost umjesto lak
inace neistinit odgovor.
15. taj te uzrok mene za seCati se za sjeCati se tvoj rijeé
Biblija ( takav kao Latinluk 8), tako da JA moéi imati pik na
moj srce pa imati moj pam¢enje spreman , pa biti spreman
za davati dobro odgovarati ostali nad odredeni Clan nadati se
taj JA imati okolo te.
16. Taj te donijeti ponuditi mene tako da moj vlastiti
teologija pa doktrina za slagati tvoj rije¢ , Biblija pa taj te
nastaviti za pomoc¢ mene knotkle kako moj sporazum nad
doktrina mo¢i poboljSati tako da moj vlastiti Zivot , stil
Zivota pa sporazum nastavlja da bude zaglavni kamen za Sta
te oskudica to da bude umjesto mene.
17. Taj te otvoren moj duhovni uvid ( zakljuéak ) sve vi8e ,
pa taj kuda moj sporazum ina¢e percepcija nad te nije
precizan , taj te pomoc mene u€iti tko Isus Krist vjerno 3.
lice od TO BE u prezentu.
18. Taj te davati ponuditi mene tako da JA mo¢i za odvojen
iko neistinit obredni Sta JA imati zavisnost na temelju , iz
tvoj jasan poucavanje unutra Biblija , ako postoje nad Sta JA
sam sledece nije nad Bog , ina¢e 3. lice od TO BE u
prezentu u suprotnosti sa Sta te oskudica za pou¢avati nama
okolo sledece te.
19. Taj iko sile nad urok ne oduteti iko duhovni sporazum
Sta JA imati , ipak radije taj JA zadrZati odredeni €lan znanje
nad kako za knotkle te pa ne da bude lukav unutra ovih dan
nad duhovni varka.
20. Taj te donijeti duhovni sway pa ponuditi mene tako da
JA volja ne da bude dio nad odredeni €lan Velik Koji pada
Daleko inaée nad iko pokret Sta postojati produhovljeno
krivotvoriti za te pa za tvoj Svet Rijeé
21. Taj da onde 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu bilo Sto taj JA
imati ispunjavanja unutra moj Zivot , inace iko put taj JA ne
imate odgovaranje za te ace JA treba imati pa taj 3. lice od
TO BE u prezentu sprjeCavanje mene iz oba hodanje s te ,
inace imajuci sporazum , taj te donijeti tim stvar / odgovor /
dogadaj leda u moj pamcenje , tako da JA odre¢i se njima u
ime Isus Krist , pa svi nad njihov vrijednosni papiri pa
posledica , pa taj te opet staviti iko praznina ,sadness ina¢e
ocajavati unutra moj Zivot s odredeni ¢lan Radost nad
odredeni Clan Gospodar , pa taj JA postojati briny
usredotoéen na temelju znanje za sledii te kod Citanje tvoj
rije¢ , odredeni Clan Biblija
22. Taj te otvoren moj o¢i tako da JA moéi za jasno vidjeti
pa prepoznati da onde 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu jedan
Velik Varka okolo Duhovni tema , kako za shvatiti dana§Sji
fenomen ( ina¢e ovih dogadaj ) iz jedan Biblijski
perspektiva , pa taj te davati mene mudrost za knotkle i tako
taj JA volja uciti kako za pomoé moj prijatelj pa voljen sam
sebe ( rodbina ) ne postojati dio nad it.
23. Taj te osigurati taj jednom moj o€i biti otvoreni pa moj
pam¢cenje shvatiti odredeni ¢lan duhovni izraZajnost nad
trenutni zbivanja uzimanje mjesto unutra odredeni lan svet
, taj te pripremiti moj srce prihvatiti tvoj istina , pa taj te
pomoc¢ mene shvatiti kako za naci hrabrost pa sway droz
tvoj Svet Rije¢ , Biblija. U ime Isus Krist , JA traziti ovih
stvar potvrdujuci moj Zelja da bude slozZno tvoj volja , pa JA
sam iskanje tvoj mudrost pa za imati jedan ljubav nad
odredeni Clan Istina Da
Briny podno Stranica
Kako za imati Vje¢an Zivot
Nama biti dearth da dana§ji foil (nad molitva traZenju za
Bog ) 3. lice od TO BE αὶ prezentu u mogucnosti za pomoci
te. Nama shvatiti danaSji ne moze biti odredeni Clan najbolji
inace vecina delotvoran prevod. Nama shvatiti taj onde biti
mnogobrojan razli¢it putevi nad izraziv misao pa reci. Da te
imati jedan sugestija umjesto jedan bolji prevod , ina¢e da te
sli€an za uzeti jedan malen koli¢ina nad tvoj vrijeme za
poslati sugestija nama , te ce biti pomaganje hiljadu nad
ostali narod isto , tko volja onda Citanje odredeni lan
poboljSan prevod. Nama Cesto imati jedan Novi Zavjet
raspoloziv unutra tvoj jezik inaée unutra jezik taj biti redak
inace star.
Da te biti handsome umjesto jedan Novi Zavjet unutra jedan
specifiéan jezik , ugoditi pisati nama. Isto , nama oskudica
da bude siguran pa probati za komunicirati taj katkada ,
nama Ciniti ponuda knjiga taj nisu Slobodan pa taj Ciniti
koStati novac. Ipak da te ne mo¢i priuStiti neki od tim
elektroni¢ki knjiga , nama moci €esto Ciniti dobro razmena
nad elektroni¢ki knjiga umjesto pomoé s prevod inaée
prevod posao.
Te ne morati postojati jedan strucan radnik , jedini jedan
pravilan osoba tko 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu zainteresiran
za pomaganje. Te treba imati jedan raCcunar inaée te treba
imati pristup za jedan racunar kod tvoj meStanin biblioteka
inace univerzitet ina¢e univerzitet , otada tim obiéno imati
bolji spoj za odredeni ¢lan Internet. Te moci isto obiéno
utemeljiti tvoj vlastiti ccew SLOBODAN elektronski poSta
ra¢un kod lijeganje mail.yahoo.com
Ugoditi uzeti maloprije otkriti odredeni Clan elektronski
posta adresa smjeSten podno inaée odredeni Clan kraj nad
dana§sji stranica. Nama nadati se te volja poslati elektronski
posta nama , da dana§gji 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu nad
pomoé inace hrabrenje. Nama isto ohrabriti te za dodir nama
u vezi sa Elektroni¢ki Knjiga taj nama ponuda taj biti van
ko8tati , pa slobodan.
Nama Ciniti imati mnogobrojan knjiga unutra stran jezik ,
ipak nama ne uvijek mjesto njima za primiti elektronski (
skidati podatke ) zato nama jedini napraviti raspoloZiv
odredeni Clan knjiga ina¢e odredeni lan tema taj biti preko
zatrazen. Nama ohrabriti te za nastaviti za moliti za Bog pa
za nastaviti uciti okolo Njemu kod Citanje odredeni Clan
Novi Zavjet. Nama dobrodoSao tvoj sumnja pa primedba
kod elektronski poSta.
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ χὰ
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὶ ἃ ἃ δὶ δὰ ἃ δὰ ἃ
Ὀγαρῆ Dumnezeu , Multumesc that this Nou Testament
has been released so that noi sintem capabil la spre learn
mai mult despre tu.
Te rog ajuta-ma oamenii responsible pentru making this
Electronic carte folositor. Te rog ajut4-ma pe ei la spre a fi
capabil la spre work rapid , si a face mai mult Electronic
carte folositor Te rog ajuta-ma pe ei la spre have tot art.hot.
resources , art.hot. bani , art.hot. strength 51 art.hot. timp that
ei nevoie induntru ordine la spre a fi capabil la spre a pastra
working pentru Tu.
Te rog ajuta-ma aceia that esti part de la team that ajutor pe
ei on un fiecare basis. A face pe plac la a da pe ei art.hot.
strength la spre a continua sia da each de pe ei art.hot. spirit
understanding pentru γί. οί. work that tu nevoie pe ei la
spre a face.
Te rog ajuta-ma each de pe ei la spre nu have fear si la spre
a-si aminti that tu esti art-hot. Dumnezeu cine answers
prayer si cine este el induntru acuzatie de tot. I pray that tu
trec.de la will encourage pe ei, si that tu a proteja pe εἰ, 51
art.hot. work & ministru that ei sint ocupat induntru. I pray
that tu trec.de la will a proteja pe ei de la art.hot. Spirit
Forces sau alt obstacles that a putut harm pe ei sau lent pe ei
jos.
Te rog ajuta-ma cind I folos this Nou Testament la spre de
asemenea think de la oameni cine have made this a redacta
folositor so that I a putea pray pentru pe ei si so ei a putea a
continua la spre ajutor mai mult oameni I pray that tu trec.de
la will da-mi o dragoste de al tau Holy Cuvint (art-hot. Nou
Testament ), si that tu trec.de la will acorda-mi spirit
wisdom si discernment la spre know tu better si la spre
understand art.hot. perioada de timp that noi sintem viu
inauntru.
Te rog ajuta-ma la spre know cum la spre deal cu art.hot.
difficulties that I sint confronted cu fiecare zi. Lord
Dumnezeu , Ajuta-ma help la spre nevoie la spre know tu
Better si la spre nevoie la spre ajutor alt Crestin induntru
meu arie 51 around art.hot. lume. I pray that tu trec.de la will
a da art.hot.
Electronic carte team $i aceia cine work pe website si aceia
cine ajutor pe ei al tau wisdom. I pray that tu trec.de la will
ajutor art.hot. individual members de lor familie ( si meu
familie ) la spre nu a fi spiritually deceived , numai la spre
understand tu si eu la spre nevoie la spre accent si a urma tu
jnauntru fiecare way. si I a intreba tu la spre a face acestia
things in nume de Jesus , Amen ,
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Russian -- Russe - Russie
Russian Prayer Requests -
Μοπητβᾶ kK
Oora KaK ΠΟΜΟΠῊΤΡ K
Oora kak ΟΟΓ ΜΟΣΚΘΤ YCIBIMATh MOeMY
MOJIMTBE KaK CIPOCHTb, ἯΤΟ ΟΟΓ Aas ΠΟΜΟΠῚΡ K MHC
kak HaHTH ΠΥΧΟΒΗΟΘ HaBeyeHHe
kak HaliTu deliverance oT 31eMmero
AYXOB Kak NOKIOHHTLCA MoHucTHHe Oor
pas kak HaliTH XpucTHaHcCKoe
Oora Kak ΠΟΜΟΠΗΤΡ Κὶ Oory JO
jesus christ 4 Hukorga He MOJIMJIa Nepey,
BaKHBIM Κὶ ΒΠΙΟΟΠΘΗΗΟΟΤΉΜ Oora
Oora kakK0e ΜΗΠΗΒΗΠΥΆΠΒΗΟΘ
jesus, KOTOp Mepcousl christ MoxeT TOMOUb
WeaeT BHAMATCIBHOCTb Oora Ο MOHX Belyax
3aIIpOCOB MOJIHTBE
2KH3HH BbI ΜΟΓΠῊ XOTETb ΠΠῚ PACCMOTPCHHA ΠΟΓΟΒΟΡΗΤΡ Κα
Oory Ο ΞΆΠΡΟΟΩΧ MOJHTBe
BaMH, Ο Bac
Tosopsm kK Gory, Co3aTeIb BCeJICHHOrO, JIOpA:
1. BEI ΠΆΠΗ ObI Καὶ MHE CMEJIOCTH TOMOJIHTE ΒΟΙΠΗ ἢ AISI
ΤΟΓΟ 4TOOBI ΠΟΜΟΠΗΤΡ
2. ΒΡΙ ΠΆΠΗ Obl K MH€ ΟΜΘΠΟΟΤῊ BCPHTb BaM Η IPHHHMAaTb
BbI XOTHTE CHeaTb C MOCH 2KH3HbIO, BMECTO MeHs exalting
MOM ΒΟΠᾺ (HaMepHe) Hal TBOHM.
3. BbI ΠΆΠΗ͂ Obl MHE ΠΟΜΟΙΠΡ JIA TOTO UTOObI He
IIPCIATCTBOBATb MOHM CTpaxaM HCHCBCCTHA CTaTb
OTTOBOPKaMH, WIM OCHOBA JIA MCHA, KOTOP HYKHO He
CIYKUTb BBI. 4. BbI 1a Obl MHC ΠΟΜΟΙΠΡ Wt TOTO 4TOOBI
YBHICTb Η BBIYUHTb KaK HMCTb AYXOBHY!O IIPOYHOCTh 1
(4epe3 Balle CHOBO OHO) a) DIA Cayyaecs Bepey HO)
Id Moero COOCTBCHHOrO JHYHOTO AYXOBHOTO
ΠΥΤΟΙΠΘΟΤΒΗ͂Ξ.
5. Uro ΒΡΙ ΟΟΓ aI MHC ΠΟΜΟΠῚΡ AIA ΤΟΓῸ UTOOBI ΧΟΤΟΤΡ
ΟΠΥΚΗΤΡ BbI ΟΟΠΒΠΙΘ
6. ἯΤΟ Bei remind, uro 4 pa3roBapHBal Ο BaMH (prayer)when
sl CCOA PACCTPObTe WIM B 3ATPYAHCHHH, BMCCTO IIbITATBCH
ῬΑΞΡΟΙΠΗ͂ΤΡ BEIM ΤΟΠΡΚΟ Uepe3 MOFO JIFOACKYHO MpOUHOCTE.
7. ἯΤΟ BbI πᾶ ΠΗ MHE TIpPeMyAPOCTh Η CepAe ΞΆΠΟΠΗΜΠΟ C
OunOneHcKOH MpemyzApoctero Tak HOT] « ΟΠ ΚΗΠ Ob! BEI
adexTHBHO.
8. ἮΤΟ BbI ΠΆΠΗ MHe 2KeaHHe W3VYNTb Balle COBO,
OuOmur0, (Hossiiia 3aBeT Gospel john), on a personal basis,
9. BbI ΠΏ ΠΗ ObI MOMOMIH K MHC Tak, ἯΤΟ 4 Οὐ αν 3aMCTHTB
ΒΟΠΙῊ B OHOHH (ΒΆΠΙΘΜ CIOBe) 4 MOTY IH4HO OTHECTH Kk, H
KOTOPOH MOMO2KCT MHC TIOHATb BbI XOTHTC MCHA CACIATb B
Moe 2KH3HH.
10. ἯΤΟ BI πᾶ πη MHe σΟΠΡΙΠΟΘ pacno3HaHHe, AA TOTO
YTOObI NOHATL ΚΩΚ OOBACHUT Καὶ APYTHM ΚΟΤΟΡΡΙΘ ΒΡΙ, Η ΤΟ
A MOT BbIYUHTb KaK ΒΡΙΨΤΗΤΡ Η CYMCTb Kak ΟΤΟΣΤΡ ΒΒΟΡΧ
(1A Bac Ἡ Ballero cnoBa (O“OnHH)
11. Uro Bei ΠΡΗΉΘΟΠΗ mrogzeH (uu websites) B MOci 2KH3HH
XOTAT 3HATb BAC, H KOTOPbIC CHJIbHbI B HX TOUHOM
BHHKaHHH Bac (601); Η TO BbI ΠΡΗΗΘΟΠΗ͂ OBI ποθ (μα πῈ
websites) B ΜΟΘ ἢ »xH3HH OyqeT ΟΟΟΠΡΗΤΕ McHA TOUHO
ΒΡΙΥΤΗΤΡ KaK pa3seIHTb O“OMHEO COBO MpaBaAB (2 timothy
2:15).
12. Uro Bel ΠΟΜΟΓΠῊ MH BbIYYHTh HMCTb ΟΟΠΡΙΠΙΟΘ
BHHKaHHe Ο KOTOPbI BapHaHT OMOIIMH Cambie Vue,
KOTOPBIM CaMbIM TOUHBIM, H KOTOPbIM HMeeT CaMBIe
AYXOBHBIC IPOUHOCTL & CHIy, H KOTOpas BAapHAaHT
cormamlaeTca C MepBOHAYAIBHO PyKOMMCAMH ΤῸ BBI
BOOJYIICBHIIM aBTopb! Hopsiiia 3aBeT HaCaT.
13. ἯΤΟ BbI ΠΆΠΗ ΠΟΜΟΙΠΡ Καὶ ΜΗ ΠΠῚ HCNOb30BaHHA ΜΟΘΓῸ
BPeCMCHH Β ΧΟΡΟΠΙΘΙ ΠΟΡΟΓΘ, H WA Toro 4TOOsI He
PACTOUHTEILCTBOBATb MOC BPCMA Ha JIOXKHBIX WIM ΠΥΟΤΡΙΧ
MeTOax Noy4HTs closer to Oor (HO TO He OyAbTe
TIOHCTHHe OnOselick), H Te Te MCTOAbI He ΠΡΟΗΞΒΟΠΗΤ
HUKAKOW JONFOCpOuHBI WM lasting TyXOBHBIM
ΠΠΟΠΟΟΒΟΠΙ.
14. Uro Ber ΠΆΠΗ ΠΟΜΟΙΠΡ Καὶ MHe ΠΟΗΗ͂ΤΡ look for B ΠΘΡΚΟΒ
WIM MeCTe ΠΟΚΠΟΗΘΗΗ͂Ξ, YTO ΒΗΖΡῚ ΒΟΠΡΟΟΟΒ, ΚΟΤΟΡ HY2KHO
CIIPOCHTb, H ἼΤΟ BbI ΠΟΜΟΓΠῊ ΜΗΘ ΗΔ ἤΤΗ ΒΟΡΥΌΠΙΗΧ WIM
pastor C δΟΠΡΙ ΠΟΥ AyXOBHOM IpeMyAPOCTbEHO BMCCTO ΠΟΓΚῊΧ
WIM ΠΟΣΚΗΡΙΧ OTBCTOB.
15. BbI IPHIHHHIM ObI MCHA BCIIOMHHTS JA TOTO UTOOBI
ΞΩΠΟΜΗΗ͂ΤΡ Balle COBO ὅμόπης (such as Romans 8), Tak,
ἯΤΟ 4 CMOTY HMCTb Cro B MOCM CepAle H HMCTb MOH pa3yM
OBITh NOATOTOBICHHBIM, H TOTOBO JaTb OTBCT K ΠΡΥΓΟΜΥ H3
YHOBAHHA KOTOPOe 4 HMCHO O Bac.
16. Uro BbI MIpHHecuH ΠΟΜΟΠῚΡ Καὶ MHe Tak HOI mou
COOCTBCHHBIC TCOMOTHA H AOKTPHHI AIA TOO UTOORI
COTIACHTBCA C BALM ΟΠΟΒΟΜ, OMOMeH Ἡ 4TO BbI
TIPOAOIDKANHCh TOMOUb MHE CYMETb KaK MOC BHHKAHHC
OKTPHHbI ΜΟΣΚΗΟ YILYUIMHTb Tak, ἯΤΟ MOH COOCTBCHHBIC
2KYBHB, lifestyle ἢ HOHHMATS OYAYT MpOAOWKATECA OBITS
closer to BbI ΧΟΤΗ͂ΤΟ HX ObITb WI MCHA.
17. ἯΤΟ BI packpBLIM MOO AYXOBHY!O NPOHHUATeIbHOCTE
(3aKTKOUCHHA) OOUbIIe HW δΌΠΡΠΙΘ, Η ΤΟ ΓΙ MOH BHUKAHHe
WIM BOCIIPHHATHE BAC He TOUHBI, YTO BbI ΠΟΜΟΓΠῊ ΜῊ
BBIYYHT jesus christ MOHCTHHE.
18. Uro Ber Jan ΠΟΜΟΠῚΡ kK MHe Tak HOI] ἢ mor Ont
OTICNHTb ΠΙΟῦΡΙΘ JOKHbIC PHTYAIBI 4 3ABHCEI Ha, OT BAIUHX
SICHBIX TIPpeMOAaBaTeIeCTB B OHOIMH, ec MOOOe 13, TO 4
following He Oora, HIM ΠΡΟΤΗΒΟΠΟΠΟΣΚΗΡΙ K BbI XOTHTC TIA
TOTO 4TOOLI HAYYHT HAM - O CICAOBATb 3a BAMH.
19. Uro moOpie ycusma 31a take away HHCKOJIBKO TYXOBHOC
BHHKAaHHe 1 HMCIO, HO JOBOJIbHO ΤῸ 4 COXpaHH 3HAHHC
KaK 3HATb BaC H OBIT OOMAHYTEIM BHYTpH these days
YXOBHOTO oOMaHa.
20. ἮΤΟ BbI ΠΡΗΗΘΟΠῊ TYXOBHYIO ΠΡΟΊΗΟΟΤΡ HW ΠΟΜΟΙΓΠΗ͂ Κα
Mue τὰκ ΗΟΠ 1 He Oyay ἸΔΟΤΡΙΟ δΟΠΡΠΙΟΪ ΠΆΠΩΤΡ ΠΡΟῚΒ
WH JEOOOTO JBWOKCHHA ObII0 Obl AYXOBHOCT counterfeit kK
BaM H K BallleMy ΟΒΗΤΟΙΠΠΟΜΥ COBY.
21. To ecaM 4TO-HHOBITS, TO 1 Tela B MOecH 2KH3HH, WH
πιοῦδη Aopora ΤΟ 1 He OTBC4AT K BAM TIO Mepe TOTO Kak 4
OJDKCH HMCTb H TO ΠΡΟΠΟΤΒΡΆΠΙΩΘΤ MCHA OT WIM TYIATb C
BaMH, HIM HMCTb ΠΟΗΗΜΆΤΡ, ἯΤΟ BI ΠΡΗΗΘΟΠΗ͂ Te
things/responses/events back into Moi pa3ym, Tak HOI a
OTpeubca ObI OT Hx in the name of jesus christ, ἢ BCe H3 Hx
BIIMAHHH H MOCHe¢ACTBHH, H 4TO BbI 3AMCHHJIH JIFOOBIC
emptiness, TOCKIMBOCTb WIM despair B MOeH 2KH3HH C
yTexol Nopla, Η ἼΤῸ 4 Combe OBL CbOKyCHpOBaH Ha
YUHTb MOCIeAOBATb 38 BAMH NYTCM UHTATh Balle COBO,
δμῦπηλ.
22. Uro ΒΡῚ ΡΆΟΚΡΡΙΠΗ Mou γΓπ838 τὰκ ΗΟΠ 4 Mor Ost scHo
YBHACTb H y3HATb ΘΟΠΗ͂ ΟΥΠΘΤ OOMBLIOM OOMAH O ΠΥΧΟΒΗΡΙΧ
TeMaX, TO KaK NOHAT 3TO ABJICHHe (HIM 3TH ΟΠ 88) OT
OuONeHCKOM MepcieKTHBBI, H ἯΤΟ BI Jan MHe
IIPCMyAPOCTb Ad ΤΟΓῸ 4TOOBI 3HaTb Ηὶ Tak HOI 4 Beryuy
KaK ΠΟΜΟῚΡ MOM Apy3bAM HW ΠΟΠΙΟΟῊΗΠ OFHH
(pOACTBCHHHKH) Jf TOTO YTOOI He ObITh YACTBEO 66.
23 Uro Ber Οὔθοπθίη ΠΗ ΤῸ pa3 MOH T1a3a PaCKPbIHbI H MOM
pa3yM NOHHMAacT AVXOBHOe 3HAYCHHEe ΤΟΚΥΠΙΗΘ COOLITHA
IIPHHHMasI MCCTO B ΜΗΡΘ, 4TO BbI ΠΟΠΓΟΤΟΒΗΠῊ Moe CepaLe
JULI TOTO YTOObI NpH3HABaTb BAY WpaBAY, HW 4TO BbI
ΠΟΜΟΓΠῊ MHC NOHATh KAK HAHTH CMCJIOCT H ΠΡΟΤΗΟΟΤΡ
yepe3 Balle CBATeHIIee CIOBO, OHOmHEO. In the name of
jesus christ, 4 Npolly 3TH Bel MOATBeEp2KAaA Moe 2KeTAaHHe
ObITb B COOTBCTCTBHH Ballici BOJIeH, Ἡ 1 Mpouy Bawa
TIPCMyAPOCTb H HMeTb BAFOOCHHOCTS mpaBabl, AMHHB.
ΒΟΠΒΠΙΘ Ha THe CTpaHuibl
KaK HMCTb BCYHAIA 2KH3Hb
MBI paJJOCTHBI €CJIM 3TOT CIHCOK (3aMpOCOB MOJIMTBe K
Oory) ΜΟΣΚΘΤ ΠΟΜΟῚΡ BaM. MI NOHHMacM 3TO He MO2KCT
ObITh CAMBIM ΠΥ ΠΗ WIM CaMbBIii 3:pP~eKTHBHBIM MepeBog.
MoI TOHHMaeM 4TO OYAYT MHOTO 0-pa3HOMy AOpor
BbIP@KAT MBICIM ἢ CIOBa. Ec BbI HMecTe MpeIOKeHHE
ana Oonee TyUMIero NepeBowa, HIM CCIM BbI XOTeT OBI OBI
TIPHHATbh MAJIO€ KOMUCCTBO ΒΆΙΠΘΓΟ BPCMeHH NOCIaTb
TIpe102%KCHHA K HAM, TO BbI OyjeTe ΠΟΜΟΓΩΤΡ THICTYaM
JHOTAX TAIOKe, KOTOPbIe MOCIe STOO NPOUMTAaIoT
YIVUNIeHHEIM TepeBod. Msi yuacTo HMeeM HOBBIH testament
ἩΜΕΙΟΙΠΗΠΟΣ B ΒΆΠΙΘΜ s3bIKe WIM B A3bIKAX PeqKO WI
crapo. ΕΟΠΗ BbI CMOTpHTe ΠῚ HOBOrO testament B
CHCUMPHACCKH ABbIKE, TO TOMKAyHCcTa ἨΔΠΉΠΙΗΤΟ K HaM.
Taroxe, MBI XOTHM OBIT YBCpCHBI MH TIbITACMCA CBASbIBATb TO
WHOA, MBI ΠΡΟΠΠΆΓΑΟΜ KHHIM KOTOpbIe He CBOOOHO YM
KOTOPBIe CTOHT JCHBT. Ho ecim BbI He ΜΟΣΚΟΤΟ ΠΟΞΒΟΠΗ͂ΤΡ
HCKOTOPBIC H3 TeX SICKTPOHHBIX KHHT, TO MbI MOKCM YWaACTO
ACWaTb oOMeH SJICKTPOHHBIX KHHT AJA ΠΟΜΟΙΠ C
TiepeBOAOM HIM padoToH nepeBora. Bel He ΠΟΠΏΚΗΒΙ ObITb
TpodeccCHOHAIBHBIM PaOOTHHKOM, TOJIBKO peryJApHO
TlepcoHa KOTOpasd 3AHHTeEpeCcoOBaHa B ΠΟΜΟΓΩΤΡ.
Bai AOJDKHBI HMCTb ΚΟΜΠΡΙΟΤΟΡ HIM BbI JOJDKHbI HMCTb
AOCTYII Καὶ KOMIIBIOTepy Ha ΒΑΠΙῊΧ MCCTHBIX apXHBe WIM
KONIOKe WIM YHHBCpCHTeTe, B BAY TOTO ἯΤΟ Te OObMHO
ἩΜΘΙΟΤ Oosee Vue COCAMHCHMA K MHTCPHCTY.
ΒΡΙ MooeTe Taroxe OOBTHO YCTaHAaBIMBAaTb Ball
COOCTBCHHBIM JHE CBOBOJJHO yuer sexrponHasa
outa ΠΥ͂ΤΟΜ HATH K mail.yahoo.com noxkanyiicta
IIPHHUMaeTe MOMCHT ΠΠᾺ TOTO YTOORI CHHTATb agpec ΠΟΟΠΘ
TOFO KaK 9JICKTPOHHAAa ΠΟΤᾺ BI PACHONORKCHEI ΗΔ THC
WIM ΚΟΗΠΘ STOW CTpaHHupl.
Mb! ἨΔ ΠΘΟΜΟΙ BbI ΠΟΠΊΠΟΤ 3ICKTPOHHada ΠΟΤΕ K HaM, ΘΟΠΗ
9ΤῸ TOMOLIM HWM MoompeHua. Mar Take OOoApseM Bac
CBA3ATBCA MbI OTHOCHTCJIBHO 3JICKTPOHHBIX KHHT MBI
TipezmaraemM TOoMy 6¢3 ΠΘΗΡΙ, H CBOOOTHO, KOTOP MBI HMeeM
MHOTO KHHT B HHOCTPaHHbIX A3bIKAX, HO MBI BCCr a He
YCTaHaBJIHBaeM HX LA TOTO YTOOBI TIOTYUHTb 3ICKTPOHHO
(download) ΠΟΤΟΜΥ 4TO MBI TONbKO euaeM MMeroOllecs
KHHTH WIM TEMbI ΚΟΤΟΡΡΙΘ CiipamuBaTb. Mpi oOogpsiem Bac
TIPOAODKATL ΠΟΜΟΠΗΤΡ K OOTY H ΠΡΟΠΟΠΆΚΗΤΡ BLIYYHTb O
eM TlyTeM untTaTb Hossiia 3aBeT. Mp npHBeTcTByeM Ball
ΒΟΠΡΟΟΡΙ H KOMMCHTApHH 3JICKTpOHHasa MouTA.
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὰ
KKK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
ARABIC - LANGUE ARABE
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
vat Ib
gel I κα ς
oe φὰς δὴ WNhegesd 9 an legs δὴ] go Sp (Sa le cs
eS ο of Hib Ip χρυ Eos
IS κὶς ρος ξι- lacus ὦ ae ee δὼ eure
ISAS ces Hatie’, Is Ce bays slocte Ghose eds
IS σὶς alg soo! eds Ἰὼ δ κὦ οδο καὶ eds 1k ac «τὸς
sce cel fabs) ight INH SAS 5 scxge lpr’
Ιῷ κὶς μος seo! eds Tease toa slo sla sid ς 3.9 ΕΣ IdXg
Se cilee dels δ κὺ Bas φὰς asad 1k ac}
del,
\Sugls Wacule 3b leas Spal esl re) ha χρῶ IdXg Sule Ba
Eds blue SU ose, ozs edie ἃ ὁ hace sly 95:8}. GU pare
Nese I jar dled Wig tiagindsl ey cicierch,
Jo [oes Δ Ng Kg are Wed Jona sS 0 4 Ree.
SB Sore Gutsy Gage
1 5 Ice ἰὼ Cra yaditia celigee ae) 1a 9 IS scge lg ἐς»! ae)
le Ble: leas ΕΝ ἰῷ ψφοῦϑ »Ὲ [9 Ge acpl ls Iowa,
WS σὶρ aml cys & Cal Late ὁ ol Goa σὰ σὺ Sond) Ieual
ewer Ιϑλσὼ εξ ρὼ ob \Jai¢e Wace’ ‘ cs (Lt oe Ιὼ
wueds & deol SOAS SOROS ὡς reer ἡ) hs anit gas
boy ay ως
IE 5 Wb ty dt Ce dss cS ἐδ Aes Ia Sound (idee Ide aga)
‘ 9" ere C6 Sa scus Ιου side des “δὼ Key Ce » ee
fa ya) hue a dat ἡ WS μωρὸ i hety Φ ὠξοὐ rar ΓΝ
ΙὉ χες amigas hs οἱ nb εἰ οι. οὐ Ig had & Ιάκξ Ὁ
leas Slee lors Ad ese. 63.510 ὦ sale ας Sg hy
ἐξ eb tol aged) αὐ sd hy ἀξ Idle su Ἰώρκσξιοισὼ Hae
dag \acsla 3 3d le lla.
le glu dele ly weds (dG ISS seis lobo ee 9 δὼ
πο! « καθὸ -ὸρ Gila se Ged tls dle dd [08 χϑ,
dal ee daysol dates Je gigs Cag 0b IS 3h « shade acele by
Wg J ok IA gle Cag Loe GUE «lagu
Prayer to God
Dear God,
Thank you that this Gospel or this New Testament has
been released so that we are able to learn more about
you.
Please help the people responsible for making this
Electronic book available. You know who they are and
you are able to help them.
Please help them to be able to work fast, and make
more Electronic books available
Please help them to have all the resources, the
money, the strength and the time that they need in
order to be able to keep working for You.
Please help those that are part of the team that help
them on an everyday basis. Please give them the
strength to continue and give each of them the spiritual
understanding for the work that you want them to do.
Please help each of them to not have fear and to
remember
that you are the God who answers prayer and who is
in charge of everything.
| pray that you would encourage them, and that you
protect them, and the work & ministry that they are
engaged in.
| pray that you would protect them from the Spiritual
Forces or other obstacles that could harm them or
slow them down.
Please help me when | use this New Testament to
also think of the people who have made this edition
available, so that | can pray for them and so they can
continue to help more people.
| pray that you would give me a love of your Holy Word
(the New Testament), and that you would give me
spiritual wisdom and discernment to know you better
and to understand the period of time that we are living
in.
Please help me to know how to deal with the
difficulties that | am confronted with every day. Lord
God, Help me to want to know you Better and to want
to help other Christians in my area and around the
world.
| pray that you would give the Electronic book team
and those who help them your wisdom. God, help me
to understand you better. Please help my family to
understand you better also.
| pray that you would help the individual members of
their family (and my family) to not be spiritually
deceived, but to understand you and to want to accept
and follow you in every way.
Also give us comfort and guidance in these times and |
ask you to do these things in the name of Jesus ,
Amen,
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὰ ᾧὰ δὲ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὲ δὰ δὰ δὲ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ ἀὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ
BOOKS which may be of Interest to you, the Reader
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
Note: These Books listed below may be available at No
cost, - in PDF - and Entirely FREE at:
http://www.archive.org [text]
or at
http://books.google.com
or — for those in Europe - at
http://gallica.bnf.fr
or for FRENCH at
http://books.google.fr/books
We encourage you to find out, and to keep separate copies
on separate drives, in case your own computer should have
occasional problems.
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ EE ἃ ἃ ὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
A FEW BOOKS for NEW CHRISTIANS
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ὦ
King James Version -- The best and ideal would be the
text of the 1611, [referring to the 66 books of the Old and
New Testaments] as produced by the original
translators.
Geneva Bible — Version of the Old Testament and New
Testament produced starting around 1560. Produced
with the help of T (Beza)., who also produced an
accurate LATIN version of the New Testament, based on
the Textus Receptus.
The Geneva Bible (several Editions of it) are available --
as of this writing at www.archive.org in PDF
Bible of Jay Green -- Jay Green was the Translator for
the Trinitarian Bible Society. His work is based on the
Ancient Koine Greek Text (Textus Receptus) from
which he translated directly. His work encompasses both
Hebrew as well as Koine Greek (The Greek spoken at
the time of Jesus Christ).
The Translation of the New Testament [of Jay Green]
can be found online in PDF for Free
R-La grande charte d'Angleterre ; ouvrage précédé d'un
Précis — This is simply the MAGNA CHARTA, which
recognizes liberty for everyone.
Gallagher, Mason - Was the Apostle Peter ever at Rome
Cannon of the Old Testament and the New Testament
or Why the Bible is Complete without the Apocrypha and
unwritten Traditions by Professor Archibald Alexander
Princeton Theological Seminary
1851 - Presbyterian Board of Publications. [available online
Free |
Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE DOUBTS AND
DISCOVERIES OF MODERN TIMES. by George
Rawlinson - Lectures Delivered at Oxford University
[available online Free ]
The Apostolicity of Trinitarianism - by George Stanley
Faber - 1832 —3 Vol/3 Tomes [available online Free ]
The image-worship of the Church of Rome : proved to be
contrary to Holy Scripture and the faith and discipline of the
primitive church ; and to involve contradictory and
irreconcilable doctrines within the Church of Rome itself
(1847)
by James Endell Tyler, 1789-1851
Calvin defended : a memoir of the life, character, and
principles of John Calvin (1909) by Smyth, Thomas, 1808-
1873 ; Publish: Philadelphia : Presbyterian Board of
Publication. [available online Free ]
The Supreme Godhead of Christ, the Corner-stone of
Christianity by W. Gordon - 1855[available online Free ]
A history of the work of redemption containing the outlines
of a body of divinity ...
Author: Edwards, Jonathan, 1703-1758.
Publication Info: Philadelphia,: Presbyterian board of
publication, [available online Free ]
The origin of pagan idolatry ascertained from historical
testimony and circumstantial evidence. - by George Stanley
Faber - 1816 3 Vol. / 3 Tomes [available online Free ]
The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea, Held
A.D. 787, in which the Worship of Images was established
- based on early documents by Rev. John Mendham - 1850
[documents how this far-reaching Council went away from
early Christianity and the New Testament]
Worship of Mary by James Endell Tyler [available online
Free ]
The Papal System from its origin to the present time
A Historical Sketch of every doctrine, claim and practice of
the Church of Rome by William Cathcart, DD
1872 — [available online Free ]
The Protestant exiles of Zillerthal; their persecutions and
expatriation from the Tyrol, on separating from the Romish
church — [available online Free ]
An essay on apostolical succession- being a defence of a
genuine ministry — by Rev Thomas Powell - 1846
An inquiry into the history and theology of the ancient
Vallenses and Albigenses; as exhibiting, agreeably to the
promises, the perpetuity of the sincere church of Christ
Publish info London, Seeley and Burnside, - by George
Stanley Faber - 1838 [available online Free ]
The Israel of the Alps. A complete history of the Waldenses
and their colonies (1875) by Alexis Muston (History of the
Waldensians) — 2 Vol/ 2 Tome — Available in English and
Separately ALSO in French [available online Free ]
Encouragement for Women
Amy Charmichael
AMY CARMICHAEL - From Sunrise Land
[available online Free ]
AMY CARMICHAEL - Lotus buds (1910)
[available online Free ]
AMY CARMICHAEL - Overweights of joy (1906)
available online Free ]
=
AMY CARMICHAEL -Walker of Tinnevelly (1916)
available online Free ]
=
AMY CARMICHAEL -After Everest ; the experiences of a
mountaineer and medical mission (1936)
[available online Free ]
AMY CARMICHAEL -The continuation of a story ([1914
[available online Free ]
AMY CARMICHAEL -Ragland, pioneer (1922)
[available online Free]
KKK ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
HISTORY OF HUNGARIAN CHRISTIANS
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ
HISTORY OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH IN
HUNGARY By J. H. MERLE D'AUBIGNE -
1854 [available online Free ]
Hungary and Kossuth-An Exposition of the Late Hungarian
Revolution by Tefft
1852 [available online Free ]
Secret history of the Austrian government and of its ...
persecutions of Protestants By Joseph Alfred Michiels -
1859 [available online Free ]
Sketches in Remembrance of the Hungarian Struggle for
Independence and National Freedom Edited by Kastner
(Circ. 1853) [available online Free ]
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
HISTORY OF FRENCH CHRISTIANS
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὰ ἃ
La Bible Frangaise de Calvin V 1
[available online Free ]
La Bible Frangaise de Calvin V 2
[available online Free ]
VAUDOIS - A memoir of Félix Neff, pastor of the High
Alps [available online Free ]
La France Protestante - ou, Vies des protestants francais
par Haag — 1856 — 6 Tomes [available online Free ]
Musée des protestans célébres
Etude sur les Académies Protestantes en France au xvie et
au xviie siécle — Bourchenin — 1882 [available online Free ]
Les plus anciennes mélodies de l'église protestante de
Strasbourg et leurs auteurs [microform] (1928) [available
online Free ]
L'srael des Alpes: Premiere histoire compléte des Vaudois
du Piémont et de leurs colonies
Par Alexis Muston ; Publié par Marc Ducloux, 1851
(2 Tomes) [available online Free ]
GALLICA - http://gallica.bnf.fr
Histoire ecclésiastique — 3 Tomes - by Théodore de Béze,
[available online Free ]
BEZE-Sermons sur l'histoire de la résurrection de Notre-
Seigneur Jésus-Christ [available online Free ]
DE BEZE - Confession de la foy chrestienne [available
online Free ]
Vie de J. Calvin by Théodore de Béze, [available online
Free |
Confession d'Augsbourg (frangais). 1550-Melanchthon
[available online Free ]
La BIBLE-l'éd. de, Genéve-par F. Perrin, 1567 [available
online Free ]
Hobbes - Léviathan ou La matiére, la forme et la puissance
d'un état ecclésiastique et civil [available online Free ]
L'Eglise et I'Etat ἃ Genéve du vivant de Calvin
Roget, Amédée (1825-1883).
[available online Free ]
LUTHER-Commentaire de l'épitre aux Galates [available
online Free ]
Petite chronique protestante de France [available online Free
]
Histoire de la guerre des hussites et du Concile de Basle
2 Tomes [recheck for accuracy]
Les Vaudois et I'Inquisition-par Th. de Cauzons (1908)
[available online Free ]
Glossaire vaudois-par P.-M. Callet [available online Free ]
Musée des protestans célébres ou Portraits et notices
biographiques et littéraires des personnes les plus éminens
dans I'histoire de la réformation et du protestantisme par une
société de gens de lettres [available online Free ]
(publ. par Mr. G. T. Doin; Publication : Paris : Weyer : Treuttel et Wurtz :
Scherff [et al.], 1821-1824 - 6 vol./6 Tomes: ill. ; in-8
Doin, Guillaume-Tell (1794-1854). Editeur scientifique)
Notions élémentaires de grammaire comparée pour servir a
l'étude des trois langues classiques [available online Free ]
Thesaurus graecae linguae ab Henrico Stephano constructus.
Tomus I : in quo praeter alia plurima quae primus praestitit
vocabula in certas classes distribuit, multiplici derivatorum
serie...
(Estienne, Henri (1528-1598). Auteur du texte Tomus [,II,IH,IV : in quo
praeter alia plurima quae primus praestitit vocabula in certas classes
distribuit, multiplici derivatorum serie; Thesaurus graecae linguae ab
Henrico Stephano constructus ) [available online Free ]
La liberté chrétienne; étude sur le principe de la piéte chez
Luther ; Strasbourg, Librairie Istra, 1922 - Will, Robert
[available online Free ]
Bible-N.T.(francais)-1523 - Lefévre d'Etaples [available
online Free ]
Calvin considéré comme exégéte - Par Auguste Vesson
[available online Free ]
Reuss, Rodolphe - Les églises protestantes d'Alsace pendant
la Révolution (1789-1802) [available online Free ]
WEBBER-Ethique_protestante-L'éthique protestante et
l'esprit du capitalisme (1904-1905) [available online Free ]
French Protestantism, 1559-1562 (1918)
Kelly, Caleb Guyer -[available online Free ]
History of the French Protestant Refugees, from the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes 1854 [available online
Free |
The History of the French, Walloon, Dutch and Other
Foreign Protestant Refugees Settled in 1846 [available
online Free ]
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἀὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ χ δὰ
Italian and/or Spanish/Castillian/ etc
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἀὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὰ δὲ δὰ δὰ
Historia del Concilio Tridentino (SARPJ) [available online
Free |
Aldrete, Bernardo José de - Del origen, y principio de la
lengua castellana ὃ romace que Οἱ se usa en Espafia
SAVANAROLA-Vindicias historicas por la inocencia de
Fr. Geronimo Savonarola
Biblia en lengua espafiola traduzida palabra por palabra de
la verdad hebrayca-FERRARA
Biblia. Espafiol1 1602-translaciones por Cypriano de Valera
( misspelled occasionally as Cypriano de Varela ) [available
online Free ]
Reina Valera 1602 — New Testament Available at
www.archive.org [available online Free ]
La Biblia : que es, los sacros libros del Vieio y Nuevo
Testamento
Valera, Cipriano de, 1532-1625
Los dos tratados del papa, i de la misa - escritos por
Cipriano D. Valera ; i por él publicados primero el a. 1588,
luego el a. 1599; i ahora fielmente reimpresos [Madrid],
1851 [available online Free ]
Valera, Cipriano de, 1532?-1625
Aviso a los de la iglesia romana, sobre la indiccion de
jubiléo, por la bulla del papa Clemente octavo.
English Title = An ansvvere or admonition to those of the
Church of Rome, touching the iubile, proclaimed by the
bull, made and set foorth by Pope Clement the eyght, for the
yeare of our Lord. 1600. Translated out of French [available
online Free ]
Spanish Protestants in the Sixteenth Century by Cornelius
August Wilkens French [available online Free ]
Historia de Los Protestantes Espafioles Y de Su Persecucion
Por Felipe II — Adolfo de Castro — 1851 (also Available in
English) [available online Free ]
The Spanish Protestants and Their Persecution by Philip I
— 1851 - Adolfo de Castro [available online Free ]
Institvcion de la religion christiana;
Institutio Christianae religionis. Spanish
Calvin, Jean, 1509-1564
Instituzion religiosa escrita por Juan Calvino el afio 1536 y
traduzida al castellano por Cipriano de Valera.
Calvino, Juan.
Catecismo que significa: forma de instrucion, que contiene
los principios de la religion de dios, util y necessario para
todo fiel Christiano : compuesto en manera de dialogo,
donde pregunta el maestro, y responde el discipulo
En casa de Ricardo del Campo, M.D.XCVI [1596] Calvino,
Juan.
Tratado para confirmar los pobres catiuos de Berueria en la
catolica y antigua se, y religion Christiana: y para los
consolar con la Palabra de Dios en las afliciones que
padecen por el evangelio de Iesu Christo. [...] Al fin deste
tratado hallareys un enxambre de los falsos milagros, y
illusiones del Demonio con que Maria de la visitacion priora
de la Anunciada de Lisboa engafio 4 muy muchos: y de
como fue descubierta y condenada al fin del afio de .1588
En casa de Pedro Shorto, Afio de. 1594
Valera, Cipriano de,
Biblia de Ferrara, corregida por Haham R. Samuel de
Casseres
The Protestant exiles of Madeira (c1860) French [available
online Free ]
δὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ χὰ ἃ ἃ ἃ
HISTORY OF VERSIONS of the NEW TESTAMENT
Part A — For your consideration
K&KKEKKEKKEKKEKKEEKEEKEEKE
For Christians who want a serious, detailed and
historical account of the versions of the New Testament,
and of the issues involved in the historic defense of
authentic and true Christianity.
John William Burgon [ Oxford] -1 The traditional text of the
Holy Gospels vindicated and established (1896) [available
online Free ]
John William Burgon [ Oxford] -2 The causes of the
corruption of the traditional text of the Holy Gospel
[available online Free ]
John William Burgon [ Oxford] — The Revision Revised
(A scholarly in-depth defense of Ancient Greek Text of the
New Testament) [available online Free ]
Intro to Vol 1 from INTRO to MASSORETICO CRITICAL
by GINSBURG-VOL 1 [available online Free ]
Intro to Vol 1 from INTRO to MASSORETICO CRITICAL
by GINSBURG-VOL 2 [available online Free ]
Hor Mosaic; or, A view of the Mosaical records, with
respect to their coincidence with profane antiquity; their
internal credibility; and their connection with Christianity;
comprehending the substance of eight lectures read before
the University of Oxford, in the year 1801; pursuant to the
will of the late Rev. John Bampton, A.M. / By George
Stanley Faber -Oxford : The University press, 1801
[Topic: defense of the authorship of Moses and the
historical accuracy of the Old Testament] [available online
Free ]
TC The English Revisers' Greek Text-Shown to be
Unauthorized, Except by Egyptian Copies Discarded
[available online Free ]
CANON of the Old and New Testament by Archibald
Alexander [available online Free ]
An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate- or,
Received text of the New Testament 1815 92mb [available
online Free |
A vindication of 1 John, v. 7 from the objections of M.
Griesbach [available online Free ]
The Burning of the Bibles- Defence of the Protestant
Version — Nathan Moore - 1843
A dictionarie of the French and English tongues 1611
Cotgrave, Randle - [available online Free ]
The Canon of the New Testament vindicated in answer to
the objections of J.T. in his Amyntor, with several additions
[available online Free ]
the paramount authority of the Holy Scriptures vindicated
(1868)
Histoire du Canon des Saintes-écritures Dans L'eglise
Chrétienne ; Reuss (1863) [available online Free ]
Histoire de la Société biblique protestante de Paris, 1818 a
1868 [available online Free ]
L'académie protestante de Nimes et Samuel Petit
Le manuel des chrétiens protestants : Simple exposition des
croyances et des pratiques - Par Emilien Frossard - 1866
Jean-Frédéric Osterwald, pasteur 4 Neuchatel
David Martin
The canon of the Holy Scriptures from the double point of
view of science and of faith (1862) [available online Free ]
CODEX B & ALLIES by University of Michigan Scholar
H. Hoskier (1914) 2 Vol [available online Free ]
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃὰ
HISTORY OF VERSIONS of the NEW TESTAMENT
Part B — not Recommended
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ ἃ δὰ
Modern Versions of the New Testament, most of which
were produced after 1910, are based upon a newly invented
text, by modern professors, many of whom did not claim to
believe in the New Testament, the Death and Physical
Resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the necessity of Personal
Repentance for Salvation.
The Translations have been accomplished all around the
world in many languages, starting with changeover from the
older accurate Greek Text, to the modern invented one,
starting between 1904 and 1910 depending on which
edition, which translation team, and which publisher.
We cannot recommend: the New Testament or Bible of
Louis Segond. This man was probably well intentioned, but
his translation are actually based on the 8” Critical edition
of Tischendorf, who opposed the Reformation, the
Historicity of the Books of the Bible, and the Greek Text
used by Christians for thousands of years.
For additional information on versions, type on the Internet
Search: “verses missing in the NIV” and you will find more
material.
We cannot recommend the english-language NKJV, even
though it claims to depend on the Textus Receptus. That is
not exactly accurate. The NKJV makes this claim based on
the ecclectic [mixed and confused] greek text collated
officially by Herman von Soden. The problem is that von
Soden did not accomplish this by himself and used 40
assistants, without recording who chose which text or the
names of those students. Herman Hoskier [Scholar,
University of Michigan] was accurate in demonstrating the
links between Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and the Greek Text of
Von Soden. Thus what is explained as being “based on” the
Textus Receptus actually was a departure from that very
text.
The Old Testaments of almost all modern language Bibles,
in almost all languages is a CHANGED text. It does NOT
conform to the historic Old Testament, and is based instead
on the recent work of the German Kittel, who can be easily
considered an Apostate by historic Lutheran standards.
(more in a momentf).
The Old Testament of the NKJV is based on the New
Hebrew Translation of Kittel. [die Biblia Hebraica von
Rudolf Kittel ] Kittel remains problematic for his own
approach to translation.
Kittel, the translator of the Old Testament [for almost all
modern editions of the Bible]:
1. Did not believe that the Pentateuch he translated was
accurate.
2. Did not believe that the Pentateuch he translated was the
same as the original Pentateuch.
3. Did not believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament or
the New Testament.
4. Did not believe in what Martin Luther would believe
would constitute Salvation (salvation by Faith alone, in
Christ Jesus alone).
5. Considered the Old Testament to be a mixture compiled
by tribes who were themselves confused about their own
religion.
Most people today who are Christians would consider Kittel
to be a Heretical Apostate since he denies the inspiration of
the Bible and the accuracy of the words of Jesus in the New
Testament. Kittel today would be refused to be allowed to
be a Pastor or a translator. His translation work misleads
and misguides people into error, whenever they read his
work.
The Evidence against Kittel is not small. It is simply the
work of Kittel himself, and what he wrote. Much of the
evidence can be found in:
A history of the Hebrews (1895) by R Kittel — 2 Vol
Essentially, Kittel proceeds from a number of directions to
undermine the Old Testament and the history of the
Hebrews, by pretending to take a scholarly approach. Kittel
did not seem to like the Hebrews much, but he did seem to
like ancient pagan and mystery religions. (see the Two
Babylons by Hislop, or History of the Temple by
Edersheim, and then compare).
His son Gerhard Kittel, a “scholar” who worked for the
German Bible Society in Germany in World War II, with
full aproval of the State, ALSO was not a Christian and
would ALSO be considered an apostate. Gerhard Kittel
served as advisor to the leader of Germany in World War I.
After the war, Gerhard Kittel was tried for War Crimes.
On the basis of the Documentation, those who believe in the
Bible and in Historic Christianity are compelled to find
ALTERNATIVE texts to the Old Testament translated by
Kittel or the New Testaments that depart from the historic
Ancient Koine Greek.
Both Kittel Sr and Kittel Jr appear to have been false
Christians, and may continue to mislead many. People who
cannot understand how this can happen may want to read a
few books including :
Seduction of Christianity by Dave Hunt.
The Agony of Deceit by Horton
Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow by C. Cumbey
The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell (Editor of
Christianity Today)
Those who want more information about Kittel should
consult:
1) Problems with Kittel — Short paper sometimes available
online or at www.archive.org
2) The Theological Faculty of the University of Jena during
the Third .... in PDF [can be found online sometimes]
by S. Heschel, Professor, Dartmouth College
3) Theologians under .... : Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus, and
Emanuel Hirsch / Robert P. Ericksen.
Publish info New Haven : Yale University Press, 1985.
(New Haven, 1987)
4) Leonore Siegele - Wenschkewitz, Neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft vor der Judenfrage: Gerhard Kittels
theologische Arbeit im Wandel deutscher Geschichte
(Miinchen: Kaiser, 1980).
5) Rethinking the German Church Struggle
by John 5. Conway _ [online]
http://motlc. wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual4/chap18.html
6) Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust
by Robert P. Ericksen (Editor), Susannah Heschel (Editor)
Psalm 50:15
15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver
thee, and thou shalt glorify me.
Psalm 90
91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High
shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
2 I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress:
my God; in him will I trust.
3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler,
and from the noisome pestilence.
4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings
shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the
arrow that flieth by day;
6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for
the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy
right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward
of the wicked.
9 Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge,
even the most High, thy habitation;
10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague
come nigh thy dwelling.
11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep
thee in all thy ways.
12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy
foot against a stone.
13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion
and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
14 Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I
deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known
my name.
15. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be
with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.
16 With long life will I satisfy him, and show him my
salvation.
Psalm 23
23:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall
not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth
me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of
righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of
death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and
thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine
enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth
over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days
of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for
ever.
With My Whole Heart - With
all my heart
"with my whole heart"
If we truly expect God to respond to us, we must be
willing to make the commitment to Him with our
whole heart.
This means making a commitment to Him with our
ENTIRE, or ALL of our heart. Many people do not
want to be truly committed to God. They simply want
God to rescue them at that moment, so that they can
continue to ignore Him and refuse to do what they
should. God knows those who ask help sincerely and
those who do not. God knows each of our thoughts.
God knows our true intentions, the intentions we
consciously admit to, and the intentions we may not
want to admit to. God knows us better than we know
ourselves. When we are truly and honestly and
sincerely praying to find God, and wanting Him with all
of our heart, or with our whole heart, THAT is when
God DOES respond.
What should people do if they cannot make this
commitment to God, or if they are afraid to do this ?
Pray :
Lord God, | do not know you well enough, please help
me to know you better, and please help me to
understand you. Change my desire to serve you and
help me to want to be committed to you with my whole
heart. | pray that you would send into my life those
who can help me, or places where | can find accurate
information about You. Please preserve me and help
me grow so that | can be entirely committed to you. In
the name of Jesus, Amen.
Here are some verses in the Bible that demonstrate
that God responds to those who are committed with
their whole heart.
(Psa 9:1 KJV) To the chief Musician upon Muthlabben,
A Psalm of David. | will praise thee, O LORD with my
whole heart; | will show forth all thy marvellous works.
(Psa 111:1 KJV) Praise ye the LORD. | will praise the
LORD with my whole heart, in the assembly of the
upright, and in the congregation.
(Psa 119:2 KJV) Blessed are they that keep his
testimonies, and that seek him with my whole heart.
(Psa 119:10 KJV) With my whole heart have | sought
thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
(Psa 119:34 KJV) Give me understanding, and | shall
keep thy law; yea, | shall observe with my whole heart.
(Psa 119:58 KJV) | entreated thy favour with my whole
heart: be merciful unto me according to thy word.
(Psa 119:69 KJV) The proud have forged a lie against
me: but | will keep thy precepts with my whole heart.
(Psa 119:145 KJV) ΚΟΡΗ. | cried with my whole heart;
hear me, O LORD: | will keep thy statutes.
(Psa 138:1 KJV) A Psalm of David. | will praise thee
with my whole heart: before the gods will | sing praise
unto thee.
(Isa 1:5 KJV) Why should ye be stricken any more? ye
will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and
the whole heart faint.
(Jer 3:10 KJV) And yet for all this her treacherous
sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole
heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
(Jer 24:7 KJV) And | will give them an heart to know
me, that | am the LORD: and they shall be my people,
and | will be their God: for they shall return unto me
with their whole heart.
(Jer 32:41 KJV) Yea, | will rejoice over them to do
them good, and | will plant them in this land assuredly
with my whole heart and with my whole soul.
| Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts:
and be ready always to give an answer to every man
that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with
meekness and fear:
Il Timothy 2: 15 Study to show thyself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
ΠῚ
cd
pie
una |
oat
Lome |
ling F
\my ¥
ἘΝ
linn νυ
(dole l auc, tal sell lied aed
δ
OTR ΠΩ
Vine igphty dane Youtey) T
& JF)
in J8
ws Jz
loys SAI
Jd Sle)
eB}
ery)
ΠΩΣ st
ll
SN)
Si Hae
oS)
hs
JM ey
eae Jy τῆ. on be" repeal cal 59} οὐ all pas yy
Osp2> οὐ» Lally δ τοῦ» I'S Als Bocas δεν ae Dy νον,
᾿ lox: Aly Oty. Opt aly Olle. olde Ss pbb pb! aly oy pa
Aa tat se Aly tasty Spel oe dase lyst prs lols on jee als ite
As pheos. play Vy chbegy ιν οὐ ail oe Glebe al, AMM d,10,. λον,
ΠΣ Use ol, τυ» τὺ» wy Bulag, bul, al, τ, AT ats lel, δ}
ων: ἼΗΙ aly ESi, gas ἢν Shag ΝΕ, Sols oS re Areal
δῖα NS Sh ge tat Saige SER SB LS a, av La oly
ordeals uly: at Ay Seely ἘΝ eis jb 3 ah Gt Ι
τ 9} 1) ls 5 ad)y ie. oil als δὶ ΘῈ Vals Gsrley, εὖθ M4 y9jles 't]|
ἯΙ
ea ee δ» UB οὔ Ay »λα 911. Salas ἘΠῚ Okay. ace | |
iM ered D313 Gay: Stes ix yl 590 Bl pee! ot Ske Yl epnaahpy |
Anan
| She pne dey Nant dt Sy wm ots: See se a
i
ΠΣ ΟΣ EIU NGG ae soy bhi
| Wal obi, pb 63) eee αὐ ey) ot dm ose)
(aan Ὡς do gay Ye 33 al see a Woke § Kio eG Sh a gaitt
ΠΣ cp dal ζ5. τιν > eagye gy Mal en ah Oo) GY σοι
| Je Si WW ia rrepilles ye tas had (al 2Y. gp del year, ὉΠ τι,
Howe AN Nile del erst ty Tal ley Jo alsa Ware. all etl sly
|
o> wee deren & S| 3o\5 ey) yu. % 5,5 90 oa or λον δὲ iw δ γε
|
eynt del ko, = bales
|
|
μα ἦν
|
|
| J) cle
353 pA oe pA TT SLIM Saag see ell δεν ed oy diese IGT |
=. — mee -- - oe aS δὶ
ΕΣ =
Nae
Shaye!
( δι ΐ) aslo
σα ote! οἱ: at
συθ
ὅν) i
Kael Lai!) μι}
nye gl pat yh re
dang ee? yD ribald! la yo &
shy BB jyptinve pes υοι
abl Oley en daS σοὺν asl Free ay
lary
a
‘ ΌΝ ς
=
“
586
3. ylaiadlady
Ga
ae a
. Qayg ads Cole Ugh δίῳ
Cp yer ταὶς page “allen,
λῶν Quy “allan,
ΕΝ elgg δίῳ
ον. πόδι le ὅλῳ,
οὐ sly Cty ds! ple “alley |
«Gly Uesag pty ple “Alay,
“gym οὔκ cp! ple “ale
1 gaye slay, cab ple “aly,
ΐ .5)}»5- ΠΡΟ te “dha,
at
a Ps τὺ
τ ἀκ τὰ ΣΙ
DIN το aa a “Ris?
pot We ἢ Wa We ρα ων» Jas!
(5 Mei ον ταν tine BS es
P22 tai iheed ein erie Gow Srl
288 we bhe Slee! US
eae alm nly “tly
405
- GAS ab csylgm ον» “ili,
Arle cole Lady yd “aly
οὐρα > οὖν “ale,
«andl algo Cpdgy “allay
cots Dah cosh ον “allay,
: dna ely Uy “aay
«lesley aly ἡ “ally
LE
NOUVEAU TESTAMENT
NOTRE SEIGNEUR JESUS-CHRIST
pD’APRES LA VERSION REVUE
Par J. F. OSTERVALD
QQ SOCIETE BIBLIQUE 7
SX. DE FRANCE, 2
PARIS
SOCIETE BIBLIQUE DE FRANCE
. 41, RUE LA BRUYERE
1872
One of the Reliable copies of the French New Testament - Une Bible fidele.
Available sometimes [and Free (gratis) ] at www.archive.org,
TABLE DES LIVRES
DU NOUVEAU TESTAMENT
Nombre Nombre
des Pages des Pages.
chap. ; chap.
Evangile selon saint Matthieu. 28 1 | Ife Epitre aux Thessaloniciens. 3 323
ivangile selon saint Mare ... 16 52 | Ire Hpitre aTimothée...... 6 326
Evangile selon saint Lue.,.. 24 85 | [lx Epitre ἃ Timothée...... 4 332
Evangile selon saint Jean ... 21 139 Epitre aTite.....256.6.- 3 336
Les Actes des Apétres...... 23 179 | Epitrea Philémon..... - 1 339
Epitre de saint Paul aux Ro- Epitre aux Hébreux.... 18 840
mains.....62+.202++. 16 282 Hpitre de saint Jacques..... 5 357
Tre Fpitre aux Corinthiens ... 16 255 | [τὸ Epitre desaint Pierre.... 5 362
II* Kpitre aux Corinthiens... 13 277 | Ile Epitre de saint Pierre.... 3 809.
Bpitre aux Galates ...-+.. 6 292 | Ire BpitredesaintJean..... 5 333
Epitre aux Ephésiens...... 6 800 | Tie Kpitre de saint Jean. . 1 379
Vipitre aux Philippiens ..... 4 807 | [Ife Bpitre de saintJean..... 1 880
Epitre aux Colossiens...... 4 813 | EpitredesaintJude....... 1 384
1τὸ Epitre aux Thessaloniciens. 5 318 | Apocalypse de saintJean.... 22 383
«τ op ye
Le signe indique la division du texte en paragraphes.
La Bible la plus fidele = Texte Recu - Grec Koine - d’Estienne (1550-51)
BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, | ERA EARN Hi
Bae. ae ee
Matthew BATH st BameAK
Mark’ ims. ee ajc aint 16 HAE at a a
Luke... 00 ee ee OA] ERDF a 15 i A ΕΣ
John... οἷς ἐῶν + 21) Bt ἘΠ 2a ie a
The Acts ate τὰς ως 28) ἘΛΚΛΈΞΕ {8 47 4E
Epistle to the Romans ων 16 ἘΠΕ -ΓῈΡ at J Foe
1. Corinthians ... ie ων 16 A+ it hi ASHE
Il. Corinthians... ᾿ς ὦ. 18 Hots BRASH
Galatians 6 a ΝΣ BAKEIME
Ephesians 6 EAR BAM BOS
Philippians 4 209 at GALE
Colossians 4 ἈΠῈ GAMA
‘I, Thessalonians 5 hal Si OE eS
IL. Thessalonians 8 = ERA WES
I. Timothy 6 SA at Hikes
II. Timothy 4 0 ἘΠ BRABREE
Titus 3 = it ES
Phitemon 1 — at PEE
Hebrews 18 ἘΞ -ΡΈΡ BAR Ζ5 ΞΕ
Epistle of James 5 nat BAP HE
I. Peter 5 BLE Hw ih
II. Peter 3 Ἐπ: ἘΠ GREK
I. John 5 She eB
ΤΙ. John 1 — st BGoOBaw
IT}. John 1 fF ΞΕ Ξ BR
Jude 1 = AR
Revelation 22 4B SR RAB
Chinese Simplified - Request to God
ARAB EM RRA SAA FA. Ta ED ERE Re
SOLVE, AME SEO BB RA AD eae SO TA NS
BEARER ΓΕ ANAT AR. eR. ΠΕΞΊΠΗΣΊΗΙ .
Tere ΕΠ ABE BAR — ab KD TT 0
oo EER SET 2S eM TT RY LE, SOSA
{
Tee I ΞΕ ΠΡ ἘΞ ΖΗ A ICS, SE Ele BF ΕΞ at
— TAY EF o
Der ee, es BUA, ΞΕ ΗΕ RP ΘΠ, FRE τ [ἘΦ BB
ἘΞ.
Petr te, ΔῈ ΓΑ AT Se BB Se ΘΠ ΠΕ 8 BOR ΒΤ
BME EEE.
pH RS RR AA ea AASB RUAAR, 2h
ABERRANT JE ft) eRe 8 Bd ἘΞ 29 AB Ea ae, JER
BERENS AGA) 22, HARSH SAAR A
TAIRA SRB EIN o
BRM TAX, RSS REY.
God Al F, HARARE ES MRS CBE EER
A BET
PRAT at, LESS ΞΡ DASE DOREY) Fs BAB FE BB eB AY
TEA BS o
ERAT HE, ESS 8 BH ZR REC RARY) 15 ΕΜ EAS
Ga, (AAR ATS. FHA
TRI BR ASS LA ABER ΦΧ, Bal,
Chinese Traditional - Talking to the Lord of Heaven
PW Liv, elite army Men SLUM RESS TS
fK Re RASA SEAS ΞΕ ΞΞῈΠ FH.
PRE, AEE ES AY] AA ae ἘΞ ΕΠ ΘΠ (ΠΗ ΤΞΞΞ
Ay 7 RERERE Τ ΕἸ ΒΗ ΒΤ AR. ER. 7 ETT
ar ἘΞ BY AR Bere A — abo RR eB Po A TP 7 ἘΞ ἘΞ 7 ἢ
er FETE] AP tS os LE, SE ΘΗ. ἘΞ ΞΕ ἜΜ ΒΗ
Aree aCe, ore El ee eke Ble a 9
Dearie, SS BORDA, We A eee APY, ie AR BP
ΒΕ. Dear te, OS ee Pe Se Bs Se ΠΕ ΒΞ TPS PRY
iS HIS BE
aa ΕΠ Ξὰ ee er) ee A Ae Be AR, DL
(EERE AT tae A 8 APT A ΗΠ} a ae BS Ec tae, 1
fet ECA A BER eB) ΖΞ, Me AES ee Ee SS ΗΚ ΈΒ
BAIR BS 2 PT RE BP ce PE A Ho
me MRSA TA, RASA RES.
God ΠΗ F, IRA BOE Ee AVE ἘΞ ΗΠ Ἔ CRE EER
AYE ETT BOAT Ae, SEB eS AY ἘΞ ἘΞ A
We BAB EE ΞΕ} (PE eto
TxA tee, ES Pe ΕΠ Ze REAR) 65 Ε A EB
cei, (AAR SIR So MARE
TR HO SS LA AS ΗΝ ΖΞ ἕξ, Ba PY,
Chinese Traditional - Request to God
AY Li, ΠΗ ΡΝ ΧΕ ery ween SLUR SUM BESS SS elles
mae RARER TST AA. ἘΞ By MRE Re
HVE, AMEE a AVY AUF ee BO PA Se a Γ
Resa Τ ἘΦ ΗΝ IR. eee. ETA].
ARS) TRE RMR) CL. ἐξ ΑΔ 2} ΒΕΜΕΖΗ
fs a lA PE PSEA Ve, PEALE BES BD 71
ARALRICE, (RAAB UES LR.
ane, KORE AM, WARS OF, MAL [ἘΦ PS
ΓΝ (GRRE PR EAE PRINS UT PRA
HERE TE.
fg ἘΞ ΕΣ Oe EE TY PS A Fe ea AR, LL
A DRE tae rs (UPN BA JE Ht Pa eae ae PBS eR Ec tae, 1S
fer Bek A) BEER Bal BTAN) EE, Mie AR a OS Se ER ΗΒ
wa GS BS AT HE A Pee AE FEY .
fae REA TARE RSA RES ο
God Bl F, MAIR SAUER Ee AVE ἘΞ ΗΠ ἘΞ CRE EER
AY ESA ETE A BCA tae, SR ΑΘ ES AY BP A
We BABS Ee BH ΚΣ ἐγ. 3 ὁ o
TxA tee, OS ἘΞ BH 6 [ΠΗ 9: RECA) 65 Ε Yc Se LEB
ci, (AA SET MRA RE
TRI HE SS LA ASRS ΖΞ ἕξ, BaP,
Korean - Request to God
Japanese - Request to God
Gebet zum Gott
Lieber Gott, Danke, da dieses Evangelium oder dieses neue Testament
freigegeben worden ist, damit wir in der LageSIND, mehr tiber Sie zu erlernen.
Helfen Sie bitte den Leuten, die fiir das Zur Verfiigung stellen dieses
elektronischen Buches verantwortlich sind. Sie wissen, daB wem sie sind und
SieSIND in der Lage, ihnen zu helfen.
Helfen Sie ihnen bitte, in der Lage zu SEIN, schnell zu arbeiten, und stellen Sie
elektronischere Biicher zur Verfiigung Helfen Sie ihnen bitte, alle
Betriebsmittel, das Geld, die Starke und die Zeit zu haben, die sie zwecks sein
miissen fiir, Sie zu arbeiten zu halten.
Helfen Sie bitte denen, die ein Teil der Mannschaft sind, das ihnen auf einer
taglichen Grundlage helfen. Geben Sie ihnen die Starke bitte, um jedem von
ihnen das geistige Verstindnis fiir die Arbeit fortzusetzen und zu geben, da8
Sie sie tun wiinschen. Helfen Sie bitte jedem von ihnen, Furcht nicht zu haben
und daran zu erinnern, da Sie der Gott sind, der Gebet beantwortet und der
verantwortlich fiir alles ist.
Ich bete, daB Sie sie anregen wiirden und daB Sie sie schiitzen und die Arbeit u.
das Ministerium, da8 sie innen engagiert werden. Ich bete, da8 Sie sie vor den
geistigen Kraften oder anderen Hindernissen schiitzen wiirden, die sie
schddigen oder sie verlangsamen konnten.
Helfen Sie mir bitte, wenn ich dieses neue Testament benutze, um an die Leute
auch zu denken, die diese Ausgabe zur Verfiigung gestellt haben, damit ich fiir
sie und also, sie beten kann kann fortfahren, mehr Leuten zu helfen.
Ich bete, da® Sie mir eine Liebe Thres heiligen Wortes (das neue Testament)
geben wiirden und da Sie mir geistige Klugheit und Einsicht, um Sie besser zu
kennen geben wiirden und den Zeitabschnitt zu verstehen, dem wir in leben.
Helfen Sie mir bitte, zu k6nnen die Schwierigkeiten beschiaftigen, da ich mit
jeden Tag konfrontiert werde.
Lord God, helfen mir Sie besser kennen und zu wiinschen anderen Christen in
meinem Bereich und um die Welt helfen wiinschen. Ich bete, daB Sie die
elektronische Buchmannschaft und -die geben wiirden, die ihnen Ihre Klugheit
helfen. Ich bete, daB Sie den einzelnen Mitgliedern ihrer Familie (und meiner
Familie) helfen wiirden nicht Angelegenheiten betrogen zu werden, aber, Sie
zu verstehen und Sie in jeder Weise annehmen und folgen zu wiinschen. Geben
Sie uns Komfort auch und Anleitung in diesen Zeiten und ich bitten Sie, diese
Sachen im Namen Jesus zu tun, amen,
Prayer to God
Dear God,
Thank you that this Gospel or this New Testament has been released
so that we are able to learn more about you.
Please help the people responsible for making this Electronic book
available. You know who they are and you are able to help them.
Please help them to be able to work fast, and make more Electronic
books available
Please help them to have all the resources, the money, the strength
and the time that they need in order to be able to keep working
for You.
Please help those that are part of the team that help them on an
everyday basis. Please give them the strength to continue and give
each of them the spiritual understanding for the work that you want
them to do.
Please help each of them to not have fear and to remember
that you are the God who answers prayer and who is in charge of
everything.
I pray that you would encourage them, and that you protect them, and
the work & ministry that they are engaged in.
I pray that you would protect them from the Spiritual Forces or other
obstacles that could harm them or slow them down.
Please help me when I use this New Testament to also think of the
people who have made this edition available, so that I can pray for
them and so they can continue to help more people.
I pray that you would give me a love of your Holy Word (the New
Testament), and that you would give me spiritual wisdom and
discernment to know you better and to understand the period of time
that we are living in.
Please help me to know how to deal with the difficulties that Iam
confronted with every day. Lord God, Help me to want to know you
Better and to want to help other Christians in my area and around the
world.
I pray that you would give the Electronic book team and those who
help them your wisdom.
I pray that you would help the individual members of their family
(and my family) to not be spiritually deceived, but to understand you
and to want to accept and follow you in every way.
Also give us comfort and guidance in these times and I ask you to do
these things in the name of Jesus, Amen,
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11